The application of the
Normative Funding Formula
(NFF) on SUCs MOOE in the
2015 GAA
PIDS Research Project Phase 2
Honesto G. Nuqui
20 AUG 2015
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
1
The PIDS research project:
To analyze, review, and document the
implementation of the Normative Funding
Formula (NFF) for SUCS MOOE in:
 2014 GAA and
 2015 GAA
Recommendations for 2016 GAA
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
2
Legal basis of Normative Funding
Formula ( NFF) in Joint DBM & CHED
Circular No. 2, Aug 2004
•
•
•
To rationalize SUC course offerings in the light
of national priorities.
To reward or encourage quality teaching,
research and extension services.
To encourage SUCs to improve cost recovery
measures, practice fiscal prudence and
maximize resources.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
3
The Normative Funding Formula
(NFF) consists of 2 sets of files:
1. The “BACK FILES” tackle the theoretical question:
Given a set of education delivery modes and service
standards, the back files estimate the normative cost
(in PS and MOOE) per student by discipline (23) and
by level (9) of education.
2. The ‘FRONT FILES” tackle a very practical allocation
problem: Given the 2015 GAA national MOOE ceiling
of P6.77B for instruction, research and extension
(including hospital services) in the SUCs, the front
files allocate the amount among 113 SUCs.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
4
NORMS Education
NF MOOE FORMULA for 2015
technology, salary
scale, etc
PRIORITY INDICES
QUALITY INDICATORS
“NF BACK FILES”
ENROLMT
DATA
NORMATIVE PS & MOOE COST PER STUDENT
GRADUATES
DATA
RESEARCH INPUTS &
OUTPUTS
DBM ceiling
“NF FRONT FILES”
Other CHED
guidelines
20 AUG 2015
AND SO, HOW MUCH WOULD EACH SUC
GET– FOR PS AND MOOE?
SUCS NFF 2015
FACULTY WORK
LOAD
5
The “Enrolment Matrix”
• The 113 SUCs offer a total of about 15,000 programs in
about 600 campuses but for the purpose of the NFF, the
enrolment in an SUC is summarized in a 23x9 enrolment
matrix.
• This allows differential treatment for 23 fields of study
and 9 levels of education. Just added in 2014 were the
Math, Science and English (MSE) Majors in Education as
the 22nd field and Accountancy as the 23rd field.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
7
Levels of education (9) in SUCs:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20 AUG 2015
PRE-SCHOOL
ELEM
SECONDARY
TECH VOC
PRE-BACC
BACC
POST-BACC
MASTERS
DOCTORAL
SUCS NFF 2015
8
MASTERS,
59.8 , 4%
2014-15 ENROLMENT, by level
POST-BACC,
6.6 , 1%
PHD, BASIC
12.4 , 1%
ED,
35.5 , 2%
TECH/ VOC
, 31.6 , 2%
PRE-BACC,
138.6 , 9%
BACC, 1,217.6
, 81%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
9
DMMMSU 2012-13
1
2
3
PRESCH
ELEM
HS
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY,
FISHERIES
ARCHITECT AND TOWN
PLANNING
BUSINESS ADMIN AND
RELATED
TV
PRE
BACC
BACC
167
1,092
1,631
4
EDUCATION SCIENCE AND
TEACHER TRAINING **
3,289
5
ENGINEERING AND TECH
3,453
6
FINE AND APPLIED ARTS
7
GENERAL
8
9
10
HOME ECONOMICS
HUMANITIES
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
MASS COMMUNICATION AND
DOCUMENTATION
MATHEMATICS AND COMP
SCI
11
12
162
527
456
139
90
51
352
129
3,477
24
1,641
188
254
170
19
20
21
OTHER DISCIPLINES
47
54
23
MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE
MAJORS IN TEACHER ED
ACCOUNTANCY
24
TOTAL
7
373
373
86
86
820
6
76
896
9
62
54
SUCS NFF 2015
527
456
233
3,909
1,641
163
162
1,816
114
NATURAL SCIENCE
SERVICE TRADES
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL
SCI
TRADE, CRAFT AND
INDUSTRIAL
IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES
MARITIME EDUCATION
20 AUG 2015
1,265
6
44
TOTAL
114
14
16
22
PHD
1,348
MEDICAL AND ALLIED
18
MS
203
13
17
66
POST
BACC
10
13,154
189
564
180
15,465
Some outputs from the old back files
still used for GAA 2015
• For each program level(9) and major
discipline (23), the back files estimate the
normative cost (in PS and MOOE) per
FTE student per year.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
11
NORMATIVE COST (PS+MOOE)
PER STUDENT
BACC
MASTERS DOCTORAL
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES
65,704
105,311
111,809
ARCHITECTURE AND TOWN PLANNING
73,496
137,900
137,900
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
58,126
150,306
184,997
58,481
104,954
116,039
161,800
144,783
131,716
128,722
128,722
86,634
124,330
139,476
113,017
196,490
155,441
150,492
150,492
112,627
137,733
153,860
125,286
88,789
143,541
159,998
54,704
72,936
119,542
96,732
110,445
116,973
69,993
105,374
104,954
150,306
141,795
118,238
116,039
184,997
EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TEACHER
TRAINING **
ENGINEERING AND TECH
FINE AND APPLIED ARTS
GENERAL
HOME ECONOMICS
HUMANITIES
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
MASS COMM AND DOCUMENTATION
MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
MEDICAL AND ALLIED
NATURAL SCIENCE
SERVICE TRADES
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
TRADE, CRAFT AND INDUSTRIAL
IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES
MARITIME EDUCATION
OTHER DISCIPLINES
20 AUGMATH,
2015 ENGLISH, SCIENCE MAJORS
ACCOUNTANCY
79,220
78,701
61,353
74,236
72,890
66,146
59,775
73,101
85,871
54,419
78,629
56,114
59,420
SUCS NFF 2015
58,481
58,126
12
NORMATIVE COST INDEX (PS+MOOE) OF BACC PROGRAMS
SORTED FROM MOST EXPENSIVE TO LEAST
1.60
1.52
1.47
1.40
1.35 1.35 1.34
1.00 = P 58,500/ student
1.27 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.20
1.13 1.12
1.05
1.00
1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00
0.99 0.99
0.96 0.94
0.93
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
-
REL
TRADE
SERV
MAR
ACCTY
BA
MSE
EDUC
ETC
SUCS NFF 2015
MASS
GEN
AGRIC
LAW
HUM
SOC
MATH/CS
ARCHI
HE
IT
FA
ENGG
MED
ALLIED
NATSCI
20 AUG 2015
13
NORMATIVE COST (PS+MOOE) PER MASTERS STUDENT
180,000
161,800
160,000
144,800
140,000
139,500
137,900
131,700
128,700
128,700
105,300
128,700
124,300
117,000
120,000
143,500
119,500
117,000
113,000
105,400
105,000
105,000
96,700
100,000
86,600
80,000
70,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
-
-
-
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
14
NORMATIVE COST (PS+MOOE) PER PHD STUDENT
250,000
196,500
200,000
155,400
150,000
153,900
150,500
150,500
146,200
137,900
160,000
152,100
141,800
137,700
128,700
111,800
116,000
123,500
118,200
112,600
110,400
100,000
50,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
15
Severe time constraints for revising
the NFF for GAA 2015:
• No time to revise the back files . Thus, the
same normative costs used for GAA 2013
and 2014 were also used for 2015.
• No time to wait for Form E1 data, i.e. SUC
faculty workload at the elementary,
secondary and tech-voc levels.
• No time to verify/ analyze reported SUC faculty
workloads in Form E2, i.e. duties in higher
education.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
16
Other constraints on 2015 NFF:
• Some missing or apparently outlier data, e.g.
enrolment and graduates by field and by program
level. No time to go back to the SUCs to verify or
rectify the data. Computer-aided “data normalization”
was applied.
• Not enough data and guidelines to implement rewards
for SUCs “sticking to their mandates” partly because
most mandates sound too all-encompassing.
• No time to review other measures of outputs and
quality of “extension services”.
• Not enough data and time to simulate NFF on
personal services.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
17
Some changes implemented in 2014 NFF
and continued into 2015
Continued from GAA 2014, “Accountancy” is 22nd field,
cleaved from “Business Admin and Related”. Its priority
index is increased to 1.00 while BA and Related remained at
0.60.
2. Continued from GAA 2014 as 23rd field, “Math, Science and
English (MSE) majors” in Teacher Education is given priority
index 1.25 while the rest of the field remained at priority 1.0
3. Computer Science” is separated from “IT and related” and
reclassified into “Math & Comp Sci” – with priority index 1.25
while IT and Related remained at 1.0
4. Reward the 3 normal SUCs (PNU, CNU, LNU) for sticking to
teacher education – by assigning priority index 1.25.
5. Split research component into two parts to allow “level
playing field”: Research-A among SUCs in levels 1,2 and
Research-B among SUCs in levels 3,4.
6. Using more interactive front files, CEB reviews the allocation
of points assigned to factors
in each NFF component.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
18
1.
PRIORITY INDICES FOR BACCALAUREATE
GAA 2015
MASTERS
DOCTORAL
1
AGRIC, FORESTRY, FISHERIES
1.25
1.50
2.00
2
ARCHITECT &TOWN PLANNING
1.00
1.25
1.50
3
BUSINESS ADMIN AND RELATED
0.60
1.00
1.00
4
EDUCATION SCIENCE AND
TEACHER TRAINING **
1.00
1.25
1.50
5
ENGINEERING AND TECH
6
FINE AND APPLIED ARTS
7
GENERAL
8
HOME ECONOMICS
9
HUMANITIES
10
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
11
MASS COMM & DOCUMENTATION
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.60
1.00
1.50
1.25
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.25
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
12
MATHS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
13
MEDICAL AND ALLIED
1.25
0.75
1.50
1.00
2.00
1.25
14
NATURAL SCIENCE
1.25
1.50
2.00
16
SERVICE TRADES
17
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCI
18
TRADE, CRAFT AND INDUSTRIAL
19
IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES
20
MARITIME EDUCATION
21
OTHER DISCIPLINES
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
SUCS1.25
NFF 2015
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
MATH, ENGLISH, SCI MAJORS
2022AUG 2015
23
ACCOUNTANCY
19
PRIORITY RATINGS (GAA 2015) OF BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS
1.4
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
0.8
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
20
Note: When combined, the indices are
multiplicative, not additive
BACC LEVEL
NAT SCI
ENGG
AGRIC
EDUC
MSE MAJORS
BA
20 AUG 2015
COST INDEX
PRIORITY
INDEX
COMBINED
INDEX
1.518
1.250
1.90
1.355
1.250
1.69
1.124
1.250
1.40
1.000
1.000
1.00
1.000
1.250
1.25
0.994
0.600
0.60
SUCS NFF 2015
21
By discipline at baccalaureate level,
combined cost & priority indices (for GAA 2015)
2
1.90
1.8
1.69
1.56
1.6
1.40
1.4
1.35 1.34
1.27 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.2
1.10
1.05 1.02 1.02
1
1.00 0.99 0.96
0.94 0.93
0.8
0.68
0.60
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
BA
LAW
TRADE
SERV
MAR
ACCTY
EDUC
ETC
SUCS NFF 2015
MASS
GEN
MED ALLIED
HUM
SOC
MSE
ARCHI
HE
IT
FA
AGRIC
MATH CS/CS
ENGG
NATSCI
20 AUG 2015
22
SUCs Baccalaureate Enrolment 2013-14 (1.14M)
300
250
264
252245
200
139
150
92
100
78
62 60
43
50
5
5
FA
LAW
26 25 24 22 20 18
15 14 13 13
6
-
23
REL
HE
MASS
MATH, CS
ARCHI
SERV
MAR
SUCS NFF 2015
HUM
NATSCI
ACCTY
MED ALLIED
TRADE
SOC
GEN
M,ENGL,SCI
ETC
AGRIC
IT
EDUC
ENGG
BA
20 AUG 2015
Not subjected to the 2015 MOOE formula.
Allocations by executive decision or by Congress.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WVSU hospital
UP-PGH
PMMA
Cotabato Foundation St College of S&T
U.P. System
Scholarship Fund (P2.5B)- * allocations by
congress.
7. SUC gross income (about P17B)
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
24
SUCS GAA MOOE CEILINGS (3 years)
WVSU HOSPITAL
UP-PGH
PMMA
CFSCST
CVSC
UPS (w/o PGH)
SUBTOTAL 1
INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT
QUALITY INSTRUCN
RESEARCH-1
RESEARCH-2
EXTN-1
EXTN-2
SUBTOTAL 2
20 AUG 2015
TOTAL SUCS GAA
2014
2015
2016
2016 %
SHARE
34
617
72
15
1,461
2,199
35
632
73
16
1,497
2,254
38
691
80
17
6
1,637
2,470
0.5%
1,873
2,258
2,465
33.3%
1,124
187
375
187
3,745
1,355
226
452
226
4,516
1,479
247
493
82
164
4,930
20.0%
SUCS NFF 2015
5,944
6,770
9.3%
1.1%
0.2%
0.1%
22.1%
33.4%
3.3%
6.7%
1.1%
2.2%
66.6%
25
7,400
100.0%
HOW 2015 GAA SUCS MOOE IS APPORTIONED
TO NFF COMPONENTS
EXTN, 225,780 ,
RESEARCH-B,
5%
451,560 , 10%
RESEARCH-A,
225,780 , 5%
INST'L SUPPORT,
2,257,801 , 50%
QUALITY
INSTRUCTION,
1,354,681 , 30%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
26
New for GAA 2014 -- and
continued in 2015
Split the original research category into:
• RESEARCH-A ( for SUCs in Levels 1-2)
• RESEARCH-B (for SUCs in Levels 3-4)
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
27
COMPONENTS & AMOUNTS
subject to the NFF for 2015 GAA
CATEGORY
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
50%
2,257,801
QUALITY INSTRUCTION
30%
1,354,681
RESEARCH-A
(SUCs level 1-2)
RESEARCH-B
(SUCS level 3-4)
5%
10%
EXTENSION SERVICES
5%
225,780
451,560
225,780
4,515,602
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
28
BASES FOR COMPUTING INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT….
Four sets of WEIGHTS used on
enrolment:
1. Full-time equivalence (FTE) of enrolment, esp for
graduate levels, e.g. 0.50 for masters and 0.33 for
PhD.
2. Normative cost index per student.
3. Priority indices (as revised slightly for 2014 and
2015) on discipline-program level pairs.
4. Additional points for Teacher Education enrolment
in PNU, CNU, and LNU.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
29
BASES FOR COMPUTING INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT….
Three sets of WEIGHTS used on no. of
graduates:
1. Normative cost index per student.
2. Priority indices (as revised slightly for 2014 and
2015) on discipline-program level pairs.
3. Additional points for Teacher Education programs
in PNU, CNU, LNU.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
30
50% COMPONENT 1: INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT
50%
ENROLMENT
WEIGHTED FOR FULLTIME EQUIVALENCE
WEIGHTED FOR COST
WEIGHTED FOR PRIORITY
TEACHER EDUC ENROLMENT IN PNU. CNU, LNU
50%
GRADUATES
WEIGHTED FOR COST
WEIGHTED FOR PRIORITY
TEACHER EDUC GRADUATES FROM PNU. CNU, LNU
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
31
30% COMPONENT 2: QUALITY
INSTRUCTION
4.9%
10.0%
7.2%
4.3%
59.5%
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH MASTERS
DEGREES
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH DOCTORAL
DEGREES
CHED CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
CHED CENTERS OF DEVT
ALL-PRC FIRST-TAKE PASSING % (AVERAGE
OVER 3 YEARS) BUT COUNTED ONLY IF ABOVE
NATIONAL PASSING RATE
WEIGHTED FOR HEADCOUNT OF PRC PASSERS
(AMONG FIRST-TAKERS ONLY). MAR 14 2014
14.1%
100.0%
20 AUG 2015
WEIGHTED BORDA-TYPE SCORE FOR
ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
TOTAL FOR QUALITY INSTRUCTION
SUCS NFF 2015
32
Example: How PRC pass rates are used in NFF
SUC A
SUC B
Benchmark
Total MOOE
44.0%
100
PASS RATE
WTD BY
PASSERS
PESOS
SHARE OF
MOOE
59.3%
948.1
59,328
40.0%
0.0%
-
-
1,000
50.0%
50.0%
500.0
31,286
600
300
50.0%
50.0%
150.0
9,386
6,800
3,500
51.5%
1,598.1
100
TOTAL
TAKERS
TOTAL
PASSERS
SUC PASS
RATE
2,700
1,600
59.3%
1,500
600
2,000
ONLY IF
ABOVE
BENCHMARK
SUC C
SUC D
TOTAL
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
33
Evolution of “PRC benchmark”
1. NFF 2005-2009: National LET pass rate
2. NFF 2010-2012: Combined LET and ENGG
passing rate
3. NFF 2013-2014: National all-PRC passing
rate
4. NFF 2015: “Relevant” PRC passing rates
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
34
Top Ten SUCS
w/ the most Instructional MOOE in GAA 2015
NAME OF SUC (113)
2015 MOOE FOR
INSTRUCTION
(000 PHP)
ENROLMENT
2013-14
1
POLY UNIV OF THE PHIL
177,431
70,367
2,522
2
MSU - IIT
13,000
10,442
3
PHIL NORMAL UNIV
135,750
115,394
12,072
9,559
4
BICOL UNIV
114,855
23,989
4,788
5
BULACAN ST UNIV
98,830
38,211
2,586
CEBU ST COLL OF SCI
AND TECH
MINDANAO ST UNIV 7
MAIN
96,187
32,665
2,945
83,255
50,177
1,659
8
W MINDANAO ST UNIV
31,321
2,555
9
CAGAYAN ST UNIV
38,356
2,013
10
WEST VIS ST UNIV
80,037
77,202
76,264
19,463
3,918
ROW
MARKER
6
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
INSTRUCN
MOOE/
STUDENT
35
Top Ten 2015 INSTRUCTIONAL MOOE per capita
SUC
RANK
COMBINED 2015
MOOE FOR
INSTRUCTN
ENROL + 2015 MOOE
GRADUATES PER CAPITA
TOTAL (113)
3,612,482
1,626,132
2,222
1
PHIL NORMAL UNIV
115,394
14,875
7,758
2
MSU - IIT
3
CEBU NORMAL UNIV
135,750
56,229
19,627
8,282
6,916
6,789
3
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIV
55,285
11,926
4,636
5
CENTRAL LUZON ST U
61,678
13,602
4,534
6
BENGUET ST UNIV
49,201
11,732
4,194
7
LEYTE NORMAL UNIV
33,316
8,093
4,117
8
MARIANO MARCOS ST U
64,416
16,813
3,831
9
BICOL UNIV
114,855
20,983
31,010
5,893
3,704
3,561
10 CAM SUR POLY COLL
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
36
Least INSTRUCN MOOE per capita
RANK
SUC
COMBINED 2015
MOOE FOR
INSTRUCTN
ENROL +
GRADUATES
2015 MOOE
PER CAPITA
101 JOSE RIZAL MEM ST COLL
19,769
14,653
1,349
102 BASILAN ST COLL
9,435
44,847
7,066
33,614
1,335
1,334
6,212
4,687
1,325
105 J. H. CERILLES ST COLL
17,225
13,027
1,322
106 BUKIDNON ST COLL
36,968
28,080
1,317
107 OCC MINDORO NATL COLL
14,495
11,259
1,287
COTABATO CITY ST POLY
COLL
ADIONG MEM POLY ST
109
COLL
11,499
9,190
1,251
4,247
4,164
1,020
6,667
9,723
686
NUEVA ECIJA UNIV OF SCI
AND TECH
TAWI-TAWI REGIONAL
104
AGRIC COLL
103
108
110 MINDANAO ST UNIV - TCTO
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
37
5%
0.5%
COMPONENT 3-A: RESEARCH
FOR SUCS LEVEL 1-2
HEADCOUNT OF SENIOR RESEARCH STAFF
14.5%
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH MASTERS DEGREES
32.2%
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH DOCTORAL DEGREES
30.9%
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO RESEARCH (AS
DERIVED FROM FORM E2)
NO. OF ACCREDITED PHD PROGRAMS
1.9%
1.6%
1.7%
LOCAL/ REGIONAL PRESENTNS
NATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
3.3%
INTERNATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
4.0%
8.0%
PUBLICATIONS IN CHED-ACCREDITED
JOURNALS
REFEREED INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS
1.2%
PUBLICATIONS PER FACULTY
100.0%
20 AUG 2015
TOTAL FOR RESEARCH A
SUCS NFF 2015
38
Example:”informed assignment” of points ….
POINTS
PER ITEM
0.5
5
10
20
10
SENIOR NATIONAL NATIONAL
INT'L INTL PUBN
PER
FACULTY PRESENT PUBLICNS PUBLICN
NS
S FACULTY
100,000
TOTAL IMPLIE
POINTS
D%
ASSIGNED SHARE
PESOS
SHARE
SUC A
200
100
10
5
0.025
700.3
31.7%
31,674
SUC B
100
50
30
2
0.020
590.2
26.7%
26,696
SUC C
300
70
20
10
0.033
750.3
33.9%
33,939
SUC D
200
10
10
1
0.005
170.1
7.7%
7,692
TOTAL
800
230
70
18
0.023
2,210.8
100%
100,000
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
39
Example:”informed assignment” of points….
POINTS
PER ITEM
IMPLIED
WEIGHT
0.5
5
10
20
10
400
15%
1,150
44%
700
27%
360
14%
0.833
0.03%
SENIOR NATIONAL NATIONAL
INT'L INTL PUBN
PER
FACULTY PRESENT PUBLICNS PUBLICN
NS
FACULTY
S
100,000
2,610.8
100%
TOTAL IMPLIE
POINTS
D%
ASSIGNED SHARE
PESOS
SHARE
SUC A
200
100
10
5
0.025
700.3
31.7%
31,674
SUC B
100
50
30
2
0.020
590.2
26.7%
26,696
SUC C
300
70
20
10
0.033
750.3
33.9%
33,939
SUC D
200
10
10
1
0.005
170.1
7.7%
7,692
TOTAL
800
230
70
18
0.023
2,210.8
100%
100,000
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
40
Example:”informed assignment” of points
POINTS PER
0.5
5
10
ITEM
IMPLIED
WEIGHT
400
13%
1,150
36%
700
22%
50
10
900
29%
0.833
0.03%
100,000
SENIOR NATIONAL NATIONAL
INT'L INTL PUBN
PER
FACULTY PRESENT PUBLICNS PUBLICN
NS
FACULTY
S
3,150.8
100.0%
TOTAL IMPLIED
POINTS % SHARE
ASSIGNED
PESOS
SHARE
SUC A
200
100
10
5 0.025
850.3
30.9%
30,909
100
50
30
2 0.020
650.2
23.6%
23,636
300
70
20
10 0.033
1,050.3
38.2%
38,182
200
10
10
1 0.005
200.1
7.3%
7,272
SUC B
SUC C
SUC D
20 AUG 2015
TOTAL
800
230
70
SUCS NFF 2015
18 0.023
2,750.8
41
100% 100,000
10%
0.1%
2.9%
5.7%
7.9%
1.1%
7.5%
3.5%
2.0%
16.9%
5.1%
6.2%
7.3%
28.3%
5.2%
0.24%
20 AUG 2015
100.0%
COMPONENT 3-B: RESEARCH FOR
SUCS LEVEL 3-4
HEADCOUNT OF SENIOR RESEARCH STAFF
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH MASTERS DEGREES
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH DOCTORAL
DEGREES
WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO RESEARCH
(AS DERIVED FROM FORM E2)
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTERS
CHED CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
CHED CENTERS OF DEVT
NO. OF ACCREDITED LEVEL 3-4 PHD PROGRAMS
SCOPUS CITATIONS
NATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS
PATENTS
PUBLICATIONS PER FACULTY
SUCS NFF 2015
TOTAL FOR RESEARCH
B
42
Research-A puts more weight on inputs
while Research-B puts more on outputs.
WEIGHT
ASSIGNED TO
RES INPUTS
WEIGHT
ASSIGNED TO
RES OUTPUTS
TOTAL
RESEARCH-A
(SUC levels 1-2)
80%
20%
P 225.7M
RESEARCH-B
(SUC levels 3-4)
31%
69%
P 451.6M
GAA 2015 MOOE
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
43
Top Ten 2015 research MOOE
SUC
SUC
LEVEL
2014
2015 2015 RESEARCH2014
RESEARCH- B MOOE (LEVELS RESEARCH
HEI
A MOOE
3-4)
MOOE A
TYPE 2015 (LEVELS 1(LEVELS 1-2)
2)
TOTAL (113)
1
2
VISAYAS STATE UNIV.
(LEYTE ST UNIV)
CENTRAL LUZON ST
UNIV
2014
RESEARCH
MOOE B
(LEVELS 3-4)
225,780
451,560
187,260
374,519
4
U
-
45,006
-
27,389
4
U
-
39,709
-
41,257
3
MSU - IIT
4
U
-
35,260
-
58,588
4
CENTRAL MINDANAO
UNIV
4
U
-
27,571
-
11,515
5
WEST VIS ST UNIV
4
U
-
21,581
-
16,181
6
LAGUNA ST POLY UNIV
2
U
20,655
-
14,955
-
7
CEBU NORMAL UNIV
3A
U
-
15,536
-
5,116
2
C
14,733
-
8,839
-
4
U
-
13,088
-
11,817
-
12,454
8
9
10
CARLOS HILADO MEM
ST COLL
MINDANAO ST UNIV MAIN
20 AUG 2015 LEYTE ST
SOUTHERN
UNIV
2
SUCS NFF 2015
U
12,760
44
-
Top Ten 2016 research MOOE
SUC
SUC
LEVEL
2014
HEI
TYPE
2015
SUCS (113)
2016
2016
2015
2015
RESEARCH- RESEARCH- RESEARCH- RESEARCHMOOE FOR MOOE FOR MOOE FOR MOOE FOR
COLLEGES UNIVERSITI LEVELS 1-2 LEVELS 3-4
ES
246,504
493,008
225,780
451,560
1
CENTRAL LUZON ST UNIV
4
U
-
67,798
-
39,709
2
MSU - IIT
4
U
-
61,494
-
35,260
3
VISAYAS STATE UNIV.
(LEYTE ST UNIV)
4
U
-
52,713
-
45,006
4
ILOILO SCI AND TECH
UNIV (WVCST)
3A
C
20,179
-
-
4,073
5
CEBU NORMAL UNIV
3A
U
-
19,186
-
15,536
6
BICOL UNIV
4
U
-
19,104
-
10,718
7
TARLAC COLL OF AGRIC
3A
C
16,986
-
-
4,495
8
OCC MINDORO ST COLL
2
C
16,082
-
3,341
-
9
WEST VIS ST UNIV
4
U
-
15,422
-
21,581
10
CARLOS HILADO MEM ST
COLL
2
C
15,355
SUCS NFF 2015
-
14,733
-
20 AUG 2015
45
5%
COMPONENT 4:
EXTENSION SERVICES
5.0%
NO. OF SENIOR EXTENSION STAFF
23.0% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO
EXTENSION (AS DERIVED FROM FORM E2)
72.0% PERSON-DAYS TRAINED
100.0% TOTAL FOR EXTENSION SERVICES
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
46
Top 15 SUCs with most 2015 extension MOOE
2015 MOOE FOR EXTENSION
TOTAL
1
VISAYAS STATE UNIV. (LEYTE ST UNIV)
2
SAMAR ST UNIV
3
LAGUNA ST POLY COLL
4
TARLAC COLL OF AGRIC
5
NAVAL INST OF TECH
6
MINDANAO ST UNIV - MAIN
7
BICOL UNIV
8
CENTRAL LUZON ST UNIV
9
BENGUET ST UNIV
10
DON MARIANO MARCOS MEM ST UNIV
11
POLY UNIV OF THE PHIL
12
WESTERN PHIL UNIV (Formerly SPCP)
13
SORSOGON ST COLL
14
MSU - IIT
20 AUG
15 2015
OCC MINDORO NATL COLL SUCS NFF 2015
225,780
11,783
9,270
6,304
6,111
6,040
5,860
5,406
5,346
5,079
4,609
4,537
4,400
4,317
4,175
4,066
47
Factors outside the NFF
which affect the use of SUCs MOOE
• The authority of SUC boards and administrators
to open new programs and satellite campuses to
cross-subsidize between programs and
education levels.
• The ability of CHED commissioners as Chairs of
SUC Boards to guide/steer/influence SUCs
toward CHED or national priorities.
• Late or missing data and data outliers, esp.
enrolment and graduates.
• Unanalyzed and unused information from the
existing CHED database, e.g. Forms E1 and E2.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
49
Other factors which affect SUCs MOOE….
• National policies such as “No tuition fee
increases in SUCs”.
• SSL.
• Civil Service Rules, e.g. on the implications of
downloading of one year’s worth of GE from
higher education to basic education.
• Power of Congress and Senate: creation of
new SUCs, congressional insertions,
allocation of grants-in-aid or scholarship
funds.
• IGPs as a possible modality (intended or nonintended) for “converting” GAA allotments
into SUC income.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
50
35.0
31.8
30.0
29.6
25.3
25.0
21.9
20.0
32.4
23.0
25.0
22.9
22.7
18.9
PS
MOOE
PS+MOOE
15.0
10.0
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.4
5.0
3.0
- 20 AUG 2015
2012 GAA
SUCS NFF 2015
2013 GAA
2014 GAA
51
2015 GAA
2016 GAA
Excerpts from the 2012 “back files”:
Normative MOOE as % of PS
Education Technology/
delivery mode
IMPLIED PS COST
PER FTE STUDENT
NORM: MOOE
AS % OF PS
IMPLIED MOOE
COST PER FTES
LECTURE CLASS-BASED DELIVERY MODE
LECTURE CLASS TYPE 1
LECTURE CLASS TYPE 2
LECTURE CLASS TYPE 3
18,649
32,409
81,150
0.20
0.25
0.30
3,730
8,102
24,345
19,694
41,340
72,063
0.40
0.50
0.60
7,878
20,670
43,238
20,850
3,255
0.30
0.10
6,255
326
15,820
0.30
4,746
0.10
2,357
LABORATORY-BASED DELIVERY MODE
LAB TYPE 1
LAB TYPE 2
LAB TYPE 3
OTHER DELIVERY MODES
FIELD WORK
INDEPENDENT STUDY
BREAKOUT
DISCUSSION MODE
OJT2015
20 AUG
23,568
SUCS
NFF 2015
52
MOOE as % of SUCS budgets
2012 GAA
PS
MOOE
PS+MOOE
18.9
3.0
21.9
2013 GAA 2014 GAA 2015 GAA
2016 GAA
23.0
22.9
22.7
25.0
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.4
25.3
29.6
31.8
32.4
MOOE AS % OF
PS
16%
28%
29%
30%
30%
MOOE AS % OF
PS+MOOE
14%
25%
22%
21%
23%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
53
SUC INCOME 2010
BILLION PHP
CATEGORY
TUITION
INCOME from STUDENTS
INCOME from other SOURCES
REVOLVING FUND
GRANTS/ DONATIONS
OTHERS
TOTAL INCOME
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
5.39
2.64
1.67
0.78
0.17
0.69
11.34
54
SUC INCOME 2010
REVOLVING
FUND, 0.78 GRANTS/D
, 7%
ON, 0.17 ,
OTHER
2%
SOURCES,
1.67 , 15%
OTHERS,
0.69 , 6%
TUITION,
5.39 , 47%
FROM
STUDENTS,
2.64 , 23%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
55
SUC income by category (2010-14)
20.00
TOTAL SUC INCOME
18.00
17.75
17.12
16.00
14.75
14.00
TUITION + INCOME FROM SSTUDENTS
12.77
12.00
11.37
11.54
11.02
10.28
10.00
9.21
8.06
8.00
6.00
REVOLVING FUND
3.57
4.00
2.45
3.73
2.88
2.27
2.53
2.00
GRANTS ETC
1.59
1.29
0.86
2.48
2010
20 AUG 2015
2011
2012
2013
SUCS NFF 2015
2014
56
Possible moral hazard: virtual conversion of
some GAA into “SUC income”
A
EXAMPLE
B
DIRECT
COST PAID
FROM GAA
PS
C
D
E
DIRECT
NAÏVE
PRESUMED IGP
COST PAID
COMPUTATION
GROSS
OF IGP NET
FROM GAA
REVENUE
REVENUE
MOOE
TRUE IGP NET
REVENUE
IGP 1
500
1,000
2,000
1,000
500
IGP 2
800
3,000
3,200
200
(600)
TOTAL
1,300
4,000
5,200
1,200
(100)
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
57
Some pending matters for 2015 and beyond:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Implications of HEI typology
How to deal with no data, late data and apparently outlier data.
Reviewing and publicizing the effect of the priority indices.
How the NFF can reward SUCs sticking to their “mandates” or
regional priorities.
5. How the NFF could provide incentives for SUC
“amalgamations”.
6. Refining the assessment of outputs from research and
extension services.
7. Completing, analyzing and utilizing info from reported
workloads in Forms E1 and E2.
8. Reviewing the back files, e.g. cost per delivery mode or
education technology.
9. Obtaining the appropriate data to simulate putting PS (or some
aspects of it) under NFF.
10. Implications of upcoming SHS and downloaded GE on SUC
costs.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
58
Preliminary recommendations for SUCs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Take advantage of economies of scale.
Identify areas of distinctive advantage.
Compute true “net income” of IGPs.
Go for quality before quantity.
Submit correct data on time.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
59
Suggested next steps for CHED:
1. Analyze, update, refine and expand the SUCs
database in CHED and use it to continuously
improve the NFF:
•
•
•
•
Continue to validate submitted data & fill the data gaps: esp.
enrolment, graduates, PRC performance, personnel counts.
Harvest information from existing-but-unprocessed data, esp.
on actual faculty workloads (e.g. Forms E1 & E2), research &
training outputs (as reported for SUC levelling).
Transparency: make SUC data available on the website.
Provide feedback to SUCs and use the resulting goodwill to
collect more data.
2. Triangulate SUC cost-per-student estimates:
•
•
•
20 AUG 2015
Conduct cost accounting study of some model HEIs to
benchmark cost norms in selected fields.
Implement econometric analysis to derive production
function, thereby estimate fixed costs and variable costs.
Continue refining the normative funding approach.
SUCS NFF 2015
60
Suggested next steps (continued)….
3.
4.
5.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Commission a tracer study to get ultimate NFF outcomes
data: how many graduates obtain employment.
Review the back files.
Conduct more simulation of implementing NFF on PS in the
2016 GAA and beyond. Note 4 dimensions of PS: no. of
plantilla positions, personnel headcounts, full-time
equivalence, cost.
Analyze SUC income, esp. student fees. Measure capacity
of students to pay and the benefits of higher education.
Vigilance against the use of IGPs as (intended or
unintended) conversion from GAA to SUC income.
Align the use of HEDF with that of NFF objectives in
allocating funds for student financial assistance, faculty
development, research programs, COE/CODs.
Continue cooperation between DBM and CHED, between
PRC and CHED.
Connect HEI typology work and NFF for SUCs.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
61
Thank you.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
62
Remarks (20 August 2015)
• The following slides show there is need to
take a closer look at the SUCs enrolment
and graduates data.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
63
2014-15 ENROLMENT BASIC ED,
MASTERS,
59.8 , 4%
PHD, 12.4 , 1%
POST-BACC,
6.6 , 1%
35.5 , 2%
TECH/ VOC ,
31.6 , 2%
PRE-BACC,
138.6 , 9%
BACC, 1,217.6
, 81%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
64
The 15 biggest SUCs (all levels combined, 2014-15)
1
Polytechnic University of the Philippines Total
2
University of the Philippines System Total
3
Mindanao State University Total
4
Bulacan State University Total
5
Batangas State University Total
6
Cebu State College of Science and Technology
Total
7
Cavite State University Total
8
Cagayan State University Total
9
Isabela State University Total
10
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
Total
11
Western Mindanao State University Total
12
Rizal Technological University Total
13
Bicol University Total
14
20 AUG 2015
15
Bukidnon State University
TotalNFF 2015
SUCS
Laguna State Polytechnic University Total
71,568
58,642
46,999
41,701
38,986
37,279
36,240
36,088
34,044
32,525
30,970
28,697
25,402
24,890
24,839
65
The smallest SUCs (Enrolment 2014-15)
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
20 AUG 2015
Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College
Total
Siquijor State College Total
Camiguin Polytechnic State College Total
North Luzon Philippines State College
Total
Quirino State University Total
Guimaras State College Total
3,252
Apayao State College Total
Aurora State College of Technology Total
Davao del Norte State College Total
Northwestern Mindanao State College of
Science and Technology Total
Misamis Oriental State College of
Agriculture and Technology Total
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy Total
Batanes State College Total
2,407
2,380
2,080
1,897
SUCS NFF 2015
3,042
2,868
2,793
2,725
2,609
1,150
929
520
66
5-year trends in SUCs enrolment
• At baccalaureate level, enrolment
increases at 8.78% per year
• At bacc level, ratio of graduates to total
enrolment is 0.143 -- and therefore the
ratio of total enrolment to graduates is
about 7.0
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
67
5-year average % increase in enrolment
Average Annual % increase in Enrolment
25.0%
19.0%
20.0%
15.1%
13.7%
15.0%
8.78%
10.0%
4.9%
5.0%
7.75%
6.3%
0.0%
BASIC ED
TECH/ VOC
PRE-BACC
BACC
POST-BACC
MASTERS
PHD
TOTAL
-5.0%
-10.0%
-10.2%
-15.0%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
68
Fastest-growing or over-reported enrolment (all levels
combined)
TOTAL
1,114,366
1,123,023
1,330,673
1,440,094
1,502,066
7.75%
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
AVG ANNUAL %
INCREASE OF
ENROLMENT
AMPSC
369
-
2,103
3,681
3,749
78.5%
CCSPC
2,546
-
6,232
8,444
10,177
41.4%
BasSC
3,224
4,414
4,382
5,732
11,861
38.5%
CFCST
1,597
-
3,420
3,632
4,661
30.7%
BukSU
9,021
19,457
22,330
24,890
24,890
28.9%
MSU-TCTO
1,458
-
7,992
8,307
3,585
25.2%
DEBEMSCAT
2,259
2,666
3,236
3,848
4,976
21.8%
DOSCST
4,050
4,835
5,777
6,660
8,543
20.5%
MPC
4,211
5,215
6,535
7,420
8,840
20.4%
JRMSU
6,238
977
10,041
12,962
13,088
20.4%
TOTAL
ENROLMENT
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
69
“Fastest-declining” enrolment (all levels
combined)
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
AVG ANNUAL %
INCREASE OF
ENROLMENT
MSU-IIT
13,011
11,985
12,385
13,000
11,772
-2.5%
ASCOT
2,762
2,673
2,402
2,439
2,380
-3.7%
CPSC
3,330
3,167
3,160
3,115
2,868
-3.7%
PMMA
1,103
-
913
929
929
-4.2%
ASU
7,953
8,272
8,727
9,182
6,571
-4.7%
MOSCAT
1,414
1,390
1,169
1,092
1,150
-5.0%
BatSC
642
596
502
520
520
-5.1%
ISCOF
5,037
5,404
5,029
4,902
3,836
-6.6%
PNU
14,359
12,959
13,333
12,072
9,914
-8.8%
WVSU
15,810
17,121
18,594
19,463
3,849
-29.8%
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
70
A look at enrolment-graduates ratios
• Ratio of Enrolment to Graduates (RETG)
• Ratio of Graduates to Enrolment (RGTE)
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
71
SUCs enrolment and graduates (all levels)
1,600
1,440
1,502
1,331
1,400
1,114
1,200
1,123
1,000
800
600
400
191
189
246
219
255
200
2009-10
20 AUG 2015
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
SUCS NFF 2015
2013-14
2014-15
72
SUCs enrolment and graduates (bacc only)
1,400
1,139
1,200
1,218
1,027
1,000
870
871
800
600
400
200
124
126
165
141
177
2009-10
20 AUG 2015
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
SUCS NFF 2015
2013-14
2014-15
73
Averaged over 5 years:
RATIO OF ENROLMENT TO GRADUATES
(RETG)
9.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.4
6.0
5.0
4.3
3.4
4.0
2.4
3.0
2.0
1.8
2.3
1.0
PRE- SCH
20 AUG 2015
ELEM
HS
TECH
VOC
PRE
BACC
SUCS NFF 2015
BACC
POST
BACC
MS
PHD
74
0.600
Averaged over 5 years:
RATIO OF GRADUATES TO ENROLMENT
(RGTE)
0.560
0.500
0.427
0.421
0.400
0.296
0.300
0.235
0.200
0.149
0.157
0.143
0.125
0.100
-
PRESCH
20 AUG 2015
ELEM
HS
TECH
VOC
PRE
BACC
SUCS NFF 2015
BACC
POST
BACC
MS
PHD
75
Assuming bacclaureate programs take only
4 years normally, how could RETG=7.0
arise?
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
76
Example1: A scenario yielding RETG=7.0:
Freshman intake increases at 8.78% per year (i.e. actual rate),
about 17% repeat the year, about 10% drop out per year,
and the remaining 73% of students make normal progress
toward graduation from 4-year programs.
YEAR 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1,088
1,307
1,422
1,585
1,731
1,889
2,057
2,238
2,435
730
794
1,089
1,223
1,365
1,496
1,633
1,779
1,936
533
580
894
1,045
1,174
1,292
1,412
1,539
389
423
724
886
1,008
1,114
1,220
TOTAL ENROL
3,480
4,126
4,866
5,445
5,989
6,543
7,130
TOTAL GRADS
323
351
601
735
837
925 1,013
10.78
11.75
8.09
7.40
7.16
7.08
0.093
0.085
SUCS
NFF 2015
0.124
FRESHMEN
1,000
SOPHOMORES
JUNIORS
SENIORS
RATIO:
ENROLMT TO
GRADUATES
RATIO:
GRADUATES
20 AUG TO
2015
ENROLMENT
7.04
0.135 0.140 0.141 770.142
Example2: A 2nd scenario also yielding RETG=7.0:
Freshman intake increases at 8.78% per year (i.e. actual rate),
about 10.0% repeat the year, about 15% drop out per year
and the remaining 75% of students make normal progress toward
4-year bacc programs
YEAR 1
FRESHMEN
SOPHOMORES
JUNIORS
SENIORS
TOTAL ENROL
TOTAL GRADS
RATIO:
ENROLMT TO
GRADUATES
RATIO:
GRADUATES TO
ENROLMENT
20 AUG 2015
1,000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
10
1,088
1,258
1,369
1,503
1,636
1,781
1,937
2,108
2,293
750
816
1,025
1,129
1,240
1,351
1,471
1,600
1,741
563
612
830
930
1,023
1,116
1,215
1,322
422
459
669
764
844
921
1,003
3,921
4,474
4,919
5,367
5,844
6,358
380
413
602
688
759
829
903
9.03
9.49
7.44
7.15
7.07
7.05
7.04
0.111
0.105
0.134
0.140
3,428
SUCS NFF 2015
0.141 0.142 0.142
78
Slowest “graduation rates”: Highest
ratios of enrolment to no. of graduates
ALL SUCS
AMPSC
2 ZSCMST
3 DOSCST
4 TTRAC
5 CavSU
6 ISPSC
7 NLPSC
8 KASC
9 NEUST
20 AUG 2015
10 CCSPC
1
5,124,159
732,795
TOTAL BACC TOTAL BACC
ENROL 5YRS GRADS 5YRS
5,856
23,914
24,977
13,175
114,351
18,590
8,720
19,931
102,857
SUCS NFF 2015
24,651
461
1,989
2,080
1,182
10,344
1,692
798
1,896
10,290
2,474
7.0
RATIO BACC
ENROL TO
GRADS
12.7
12.0
12.0
11.1
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.5
10.0
10.0 79
“Fastest graduation rates”: Highest
ratios of graduates to enrolment
ALL SUCS
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
TSU
BU
PNU
WVSU
PMMA
PhilSCA
BatSC
DNSC
CSPC
20 AUG 2015
5,124,159
732,795
TOTAL BACC TOTAL BACC
ENROL 5YRS GRADS 5YRS
68,835
84,604
42,936
52,979
3,704
11,565
1,665
3,008
4,317
SUCS NFF 2015
14,618
18,756
9,905
12,582
906
3,204
463
919
2,433
7.0
RATIO BACC
ENROL TO
GRADS
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.3
1.8
80
There is urgent need to validate enrolment
and graduates data, by level and by field of
study.
20 AUG 2015
SUCS NFF 2015
81