Selective Justice? CHED Chairperson Faces Backlash Over Uneven Crackdown on Educational Institutions
A controversy is brewing inside
the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) following accusations of selective
enforcement against higher education institutions, with critics questioning why
several allegedly non-compliant schools continue operating while
long-established institutions face sanctions.
The issue relates to unresolved
findings from CHED’s 2024 evaluation of teacher education programs nationwide.
According to insiders familiar with the discussions, more than 100 institutions
were flagged for failing to meet minimum standards, including low Licensure
Examination for Teachers (LET) passing rates, inadequate faculty
qualifications, weak academic leadership, and outdated curricula.
Despite the alarming scale of the
deficiencies, and a thorough discussion of the evaluation by the Commission En
Banc, critics say no decisive action has been taken by the current CHED
administration. This inaction, observers argue, has raised troubling questions
about consistency and impartiality within the commission, including CHED
Chairperson Shirley C. Agrupis herself.
Particular attention has been
drawn to CHED’s treatment of certain campuses of a renowned educational
institution with nationwide presence, which some claim have been
disproportionately targeted despite their long operational history and
established infrastructure. The campuses reportedly under scrutiny have existed
for an average of three decades and own both the land and buildings they occupy
— with state of the art computer laboratories and international certification
for students; characteristics supporters say distinguish them from
“fly-by-night” institutions that continue operating despite alleged
deficiencies.
Rumors circulating within
academic circles suggest that politics may be influencing regulatory decisions.
Some critics speculate that CHED Chairperson Agrupis’ perceived bias against
the targeted institution stems from either the institution’s association with
former CHED officials or Chairperson Agrupis’ own alleged ties to the said
institution’s competitors, although no evidence supporting either has publicly
surfaced.
What is clear, however, is the
mounting frustration among stakeholders who believe CHED’s enforcement efforts
have become uneven. The irony has not gone unnoticed: while the commission
celebrated top-performing teacher education institutions through the 2025
EQUATE Awards, the long-promised crackdown on underperforming programs never
materialized.
For many educators, the issue
goes beyond institutional rivalries. It strikes at the credibility of CHED’s
regulatory mandate and the broader quality of higher education in the
Philippines. If standards are to mean anything, critics argue, enforcement must
apply equally regardless of political affiliations, institutional size, or the
regulator’s personal ties.
As calls for transparency grow
louder, CHED may soon face pressure not only to explain its decisions, but also
to prove that accountability in higher education is not being applied
selectively.
Comments
Post a Comment