ShodhGyan
STATUS OF SELECTED LOCAL UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES IN METRO MANILA: BASIS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENTION MEASURES

Original Article

Status of Selected Local Universities and Colleges in Metro Manila: Basis for Proposed Intervention Measures

 

Leopoldo C.  Catchuela 1*Icon Description automatically generated, Dennis A. De Jesus 1Icon Description automatically generated

1 Professor, Technological Institute of the Philippines   

QR-Code

CrossMark

ABSTRACT

The education sector is faced with the task of producing a nation that is ready to face different challenges such as social, political, economic, and cultural challenges. To face these challenges effectively, the task requires persons with development, greater productivity, and greater competitiveness in the global market. There is, however, a fast movement of ideas, funds, people, economies, values, cultures, knowledge, goods, services, and technology across borders in search of opportunities. In the Philippines, some local governments have initiated a movement to provide communities with better accessibility to higher education through the creation of Local Colleges and Universities (LCUs) through Sanggunian Ordinances, all under the Local Government Code of 1991. The movement to establish LCUs originated from an ideology that higher education has a

democratizing effect, especially among the underprivileged. The Local Government Units (LGUs) are also entrusted with ensuring that these agencies provide quality education that aligns with the required standards set by the Commission on Higher Education. In addition to this are the support needed by these agencies to function efficiently: financial supplies for them to maintain their good running, development of the human aspect of these agencies, the teachers and support staff, and accreditation for these institutions. This study utilized a descriptive and correlational approach. Descriptive research involves studying the nature and interaction of phenomena and usually gathers information from survey research.

 

Keywords: Local Government Unit, Local Universities and Colleges, Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education, Educational System, Delivery of Services

 

INTRODUCTION

The education sector has the duty to achieve the creation of a nation that will be ready for the challenges that the nation is faced with. There is an influx of ideas, money, and people as the result of globalization. The education institutions have the duty not to just keep the pace, but to ensure that the changes that are advocated for are for the better. The main goal of the sector is not altered; the goal is to train students. The goal is to produce human capital in the local as well as the global market.

In the Philippines, local government units are emerging to widen the accessibility of higher education through the establishment of Local Colleges and Universities through ordinances approved by the Sanggunians within the framework of the Local Government Code of 1991. The undertone surrounding the establishment of these local institutions is the democratizing element, the notion that higher education must be accessible to financially impoverished Filipino citizens. Running these local institutions is a major consideration. Ensuring the delivery of quality education taught in institutions established by the LGU on par with the standards established by the Commission on Higher Education is imperative. Funding needs to cover the school and programs’ maintenance, infrastructure and human development.

The focus of my research is on some specific LCUs in Metro Manila to design an intervention to address some of CHED’s quality management objectives. The validity and appropriateness of having an LCU and a local-government-led approach might seem good; however, its ineffectiveness in governance and a lack of instructors with master’s degrees in a particular area have impeded improved educational provision to these communities.

 

Methodology

This study employed a descriptive and correlational approach. A descriptive study is concerned with the description of the nature and patterns of interaction and phenomena revealed by survey research using a descriptive approach. On the other hand, a correlational study is concerned with the search for possible antecedents of a given condition. The researcher did not manipulate or control the variables. The study participants included Local School Boards, School Administrators, Teachers, and Students.

 

Results

The study resulted in several notable findings that strengthen the objectives as well as the preliminary hypothesis of the research work. The salient findings of the study are as follows:

1)     Status of Local Colleges and Universities

Table 1 Program Offerings

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The educational institution has an administrative organization that facilitates the

attainment of its vision, mission, goals, and obj.

4.41

E

4.80

E

4.05

VG

4.50

E

4.41

E

2.5

2

Program courses are outcomes-based as shown in the enhanced curriculum and syllabi.

4.23

E

4.80

E

4.28

E

4.58

E

4.23

E

7

3

Program offerings are market-driven based on

the industry/employer feedback, advertising, survey, and potential in the industry.

4.18

VG

4.2

E

4.17

VG

4.59

E

4.18

VG

8

4

Colleges have regular employment scanning as shown in the tracer scanning, career

guidance programs, and job fairs.

4.50

E

3.80

VG

4.13

VG

4.45

E

4.50

E

1

5

There are tracer studies per program.

4.41

E

3.80

VG

4.08

VG

4.40

E

4.41

E

2.5

6

There is an Alumni Office involved in monitoring graduates’ progress.

4.27

E

4.40

E

4.10

VG

4.47

E

4.27

E

6

7

The institution has partnered with businesses and industry in Program offerings and/or Curriculum Development with the approval of the University/College Council.

4.36

E

4.20

E

4.19

VG

4.52

E

4.36

E

4.5

8

There is a Placement Office or its equivalent to assist graduates.

4.36

E

3.80

VG

4.16

VG

4.57

E

4.36

E

4.5

Overall Weighted Mean

4.34

E

4.23

E

4.14

VG

4.51

E

4.34

E

 

The school board, administrators, and faculty members, as well as the students, rated the program highly with a weighted mean of 4.34. This is an indication that the goals of the program align perfectly with the needs of the stakeholders, and it plays a major role in improving the daily learning experience in the colleges and universities. In the future, it is critical that this is maintained and improved.

This is consistent with CMO No. 40 s. 2008 because CHED ensures quality and sustainability, and even with accreditation bodies among which are accrediting agencies which assess the current conditions and accomplishments of institutions using current program offerings.  

Table 2

Table 2 Human Resources Development

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The institution has a Faculty Development Program as shown by the following: budget, training and seminars, financial assistance, honorarium, Scholarships, service credits, leave credits, and career advancement/ promotion.

4.55

E

  4.80

E

4.16

VG

4.65

E

4.54

E

2

2

There is an orientation/reorientation program for all faculty, including the institution’s mission statements and philosophy, institutional strategies, and policies.

4.77

E

  4.80

E

4.18

VG

4.45

E

4.55

E

1

3

There is a formal study opportunity for faculty members and professional organizations.

4.41

E

4.80

E

4.2

E

4.63

E

4.51

E

3

4

There are opportunities available to the full- time faculty in the graduate and post-graduate programs such as scholarships/grants and fellowships, research, seminars, and training.

4.32

E

  4.80

E

4.25

E

4.6

E

4.49

E

5

5

There are faculty and committee meetings such as Institutional, College, Department, and Committee/Project meetings.

4.59

E

  4.40

E

4.34

E

4.67

E

4.5

E

6

The budget for Faculty Development Programs was implemented.

4.68

E

4.40

E

4.16

VG

4.57

E

4.44

E

6

7

The institution solicits the approval of the Faculty Development Program.

4.50

E

4.40

E

4.17

VG

4.47

E

4.39

E

7

8

The institution monitors the faculty meeting and attendance of faculty in meetings, seminars, and other training programs.

4.12

VG

   4.40

E

4.17

VG

4.70

E

4.35

E

8

Overall Weighted Mean

4.49

E

4.60

E

4.20

E

4.59

E

4.47

E

 

The Human Resource Development in colleges and universities is rated a premium outstanding rating with an average score of 4.47, which is supported by the full backing of the entire school board and authorities. This high rating is not only an impressive reflection of the quality of this particular program but also a demonstration of the impact it has in improving the human recruitment base in the education industry. This high standard must be maintained in order for the momentum to continue.

This contention is supported by Workhuman (2023), which states that there may be benefits in emphasizing more the development of human resources because this approach can help improve the performance of the employee as well as the organizational progress.

Table 3

Table 3 Budget Allocation

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

There is a team that is responsible for the preparation of the formal annual budget of the institution.

3.59

VG

4.40

E

3.92

VG

4.54

E

4.11

VG

5

2

There are officials responsible for the implementation of the institution’s expenditure plan.

4.14

VG

4.20

E

3.37

G

4.60

E

4.08

VG

8

3

There are officials responsible for preparing reports and financial statements of the University.

4.18

VG

4.40

E

4.26

E

4.46

E

4.33

E

1

4

The institution formulates and provides AIP, APP, TMPP, and other similar documents.

4.27

E

4.20

E

4.18

VG

4.53

E

4.30

E

2

5

There is a mechanism for performance, rewards, awards, and incentives for service excellence.

4

VG

3.80

VG

4.23

E

4.59

E

4.16

VG

3

6

There is a Budget Allocation and mechanism for faculty development and training.

4.59

E

3.80

VG

3.40

VG

4.60

E

4.10

VG

9

7

There is a mechanism to rectify shortfalls in supplies of materials, equipment, and tools.

4.09

VG

3.80

VG

4.07

VG

4.49

E

4.11

VG

5

8

There is a system of data gathering for budget preparation, consolidation, and revenue projection for the coming academic year.

4.09

VG

3.80

VG

3.94

VG

4.51

E

4.09

VG

7

9

There is a system for conducting institutional quarterly budget reviews.

4.09

VG

3.80

VG

4.01

VG

4.55

E

4.11

VG

5

10

There is a mechanism for the expenditure control of General Funds, institution trust, and other funds.

4.00

VG

3.80

VG

3.99

VG

4.62

E

3.95

VG

10

Overall Weighted Mean

4.10

VG

4.00

VG

3.94

VG

4.55

E

4.16

VG

 

Budgeting in local colleges and universities received a very excellent overall acceptability rating from the members of the school board, administrators, faculty members, and students, with a total weighted mean of 4.16. To put it in simple terms, this means that the program received a very good rating, which indicates there's still room to improve the program. This data can help in enhancing the development of human resources in the field of education.

Moreover, this is supported by Poral’s study from 2022, which reveals that at a higher standard, school administrators exhibit a great mastery of authority, responsibility, and accountabilities. Through budget programs, projects, and activities, they implement a shift within the school community by encouraging other leaders to be transparent with funds.

Table 4

Table 4 Student Services

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The institution has a Student Development and Services Program (SDSP) that is directed and focused on students’ welfare and development.

4.05

VG

4.20

E

4.13

VG

4.64

E

4.26

E

10

2

The Students Development and Services Program (SDSP) is responsive to the various needs of the students.

4.05

VG

4.20

E

3.97

VG

4.63

E

4.21

E

11

3

There are student admission records available on Enrollment Trends, Dropout Rate, Licensure Examination, Employability of Graduates, student transferees, and Student Classification by Specialization.

4.05

VG

4.60

E

4.14

VG

4.63

E

4.36

E

8

4

The Admission program has policies and procedures for the selection and admission of students.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.27

E

4.63

E

4.45

E

4

5

The various Student Development and Services Program (SDSP) offices are provided with facilities, equipment, and supplies.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.21

E

4.63

E

4.43

E

5.5

6

The institution reviews and monitors the selection and admission policies for students.

4.18

VG

4.80

E

3.51

VG

4.62

E

4.28

E

9

7

Scholarships, allowances, and other incentives are given to deserving members.

4.23

E

5.00

E

4.27

E

4.70

E

4.55

E

1

8

There is an Effective Sports Development Program and a Socio-Cultural Development Program.

4.00

VG

4.80

E

4.21

E

4.50

E

4.38

E

7

9

Student’s publication highlighting students’

4.05

VG

4.80

E

4.29

E

4.56

E

4.43

E

5.5

10

The content of the publication reflects the students’ ideas, opinions, and concerns.

4.14

VG

4.80

E

4.38

E

4.56

E

4.47

E

3

11

There is responsible campus journalism.

4.14

VG

4.80

E

4.48

E

4.56

E

4.50

E

2

Overall Weighted Mean

4.10

VG

4.69

E

4.17

VG

4.61

E

4.39

E

 

The exceptional rating given to Student Services at all local colleges and universities, and shared by the school board, administrators, faculty, and students alike, with a weighted mean of 4.39, is a testament to its excellence and effectiveness. The importance of Student Services in enhancing the educational experience has been brought out by this massive support for its services offered to the students. The future shall hold great importance for all concerned parties involved in this educational community to continue with this excellence.

What this implies is that scholarships, allowances, as well as other incentives, reach the targeted students. This study agrees with the views of Patalinghug et al. (2021) on the matter that connectivity improvements and the presence of a strong campus network would act as one of the fundamental facilitators of the service standard of students on campus and are considered pivotal to the improvement of students’ satisfaction.

Table 5

Table 5 Research

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The Research Program of the university/college is relevant to the priorities and needs of the institution and the local community.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.20

E

4.62

E

4.43

E

3.5

2

The Research Development Center implements and evaluates the Research Agenda.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.24

E

4.60

E

4.43

E

3.5

3

The center has researchers who are educationally qualified and competent and has technical personnel support such as Statistician, Research Editor, and Data Encoder.

4.22

E

4.20

E

4.14

VG

4.61

E

4.22

E

12

4

There is a provision for research in the Annual Investment Plan as evident in the approved AIP with budgetary allocation or board resolution.

4.25

E

4.80

E

4.22

E

4.55

E

4.25

E

11

5

Research output became the bases for policy/ program development, implementation/ adoption/ utilization of the research output.

4.41

E

4.60

E

4.24

E

4.60

E

4.41

E

6

6

There is a publication of the research output in a research journal (institutional, local, national, international) in both hard print and online.

4.47

E

4.80

E

4.25

E

4.66

E

4.47

E

1

7

The institution develops and implements policies in the management of the Research Development Center.

4.36

E

4.60

E

4.20

E

4.59

E

4.36

E

9.5

8

The institution supports faculty who are engaged in research that is relevant to their fields of specialization as evident in the following practices: Research as a criterion in the Merit and Ranking, Promotion System, Deloading or teaching equivalency, Service credit, Compensatory time off, Honorarium, Financial Aids, Attendance to approved research service training is on official business.

4.45

E

4.80

E

4.18

VG

4.64

E

4.45

E

2

9

There is additional funding available from patents, licenses, copyrights, and other research outputs.

4.36

E

4.60

E

4.12

VG

4.56

E

4.36

E

9.5

10

There is a functional and long-range program of faculty/staff development to strengthen research capability and competence.

4.37

E

4.60

E

4.17

VG

4.58

E

4.37

E

8

11

There are collaborative and interdisciplinary research activities.

4.38

E

4.60

E

4.17

VG

4.62

E

4.38

E

7

12

Research outputs are reviewed by the panelists/body of experts before the publication in the research journals.

4.42

E

4.80

E

4.21

E

4.61

E

4.42

E

5

Overall Weighted Mean

4.40

E

4.67

E

4.20

E

4.60

E

4.4

E

 

The local universities and colleges are performing very well in their research work, and this is a result of the inputs received from the school board, administration, faculty, and students, rating an average of 4.40 on the composite weighted criteria. The importance and quality of the research work conducted are reflected in its intended purpose, which is to improve knowledge and also enhance the environment for learning.

These are in consonance with the views presented by Quitoras and Abuso (2021), who recommended the following initiatives on the part of the administration in developing and maintaining a strong research culture in the institution: Research Training, Research Consultancy, and ITSO Services. The adoption of this best practice shall further improve the research capability in the institution.

Table 6

 Table 6 Community Extension

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The institution’s educational philosophy, policies, programs, and services are anchored on local and national development plans and made known to the community such as parents and students, alumni, other colleges and universities, government entities, private educational agencies.

4.50

E

4.80

E

4.23

E

4.71

E

4.56

E

1

2

The institution has a separate Extension Service Office headed by qualified faculty members/administrative employees.

4.23

E

4.60

E

4.18

VG

4.59

E

4.40

E

4

3

The institution has a community outreach program that promotes satisfactory relations/linkages with various sectors of the community such as Other Educational Institutions, Government Agencies, and Non- Government Agencies.

4.23

E

4.60

E

4.22

E

4.63

E

4.42

E

2.5

4

The institution has outreach programs, projects, and activities based on the following key development areas: Environment, Disaster preparedness, Entrepreneurship, Values Formation, Health and Sanitation, Education, Recreation, Gender, and Development.

4.00

VG

4.60

E

4.23

E

4.60

E

4.36

E

5

5

The institution acknowledges the conditions and needs of the outside community as evident in Course Practicum/ Apprenticeship Requirements as shown in their Program of Study/ curricular program, Co-curricular activities, Community needs assessment surveys, Meetings with public and private community, Research Studies, Social Orientation, and Exposures/Immersion.

4.23

E

4.80

E

4.14

VG

4.52

E

4.42

E

2.5

6

The institution has resources that it shares with the community.

4.18

VG

4.30

E

4.19

VG

4.25

E

4.23

E

8

7

The institution has outreach programs, projects, and activities that cover the national level, regional level, local level, and barangay.

4.32

E

4.30

E

4.18

VG

4.25

E

4.26

E

6.5

8

The institution has various forms of Extension Services such as financial aid and other assistance to needy, students; Participates in government and nongovernmental organization activities, work-related to educational and religious activities, and civic and cultural activities; community service projects involve all sectors of the college community in such services (administration, faculty, students, alumni, parents, and guests).

4.23

E

4.30

E

4.22

E

4.36

E

4.26

E

6.5

Overall Weighted Mean

4.24

E

4.54

E

4.20

E

4.48

E

4.37

E

 

The overall Community Extension rating in the collegiate and university level, as posited by the school board and other stakeholders involved, is 4.37. Such a rating does not just show satisfaction over efficient service delivery but actual and tangible impact. Various collective voices and feedback continue to ring that Community Extension is a significant stimulus to social responsiveness, an active communal engagement, and eventually to well-being. This should thereby catalyze bringing higher education closer to their communities for great change and further empowerment.

Building on the ideas of Galorio et al. (2023)., the core message is that truly touching lives, especially those who are marginalized or Indigenous, is about mutual exchange: care for care and love for love. There is also significance in embracing diverse cultures, notably the seven Tribes of Bukidnon. Each Tribe has different customs and traditions to which program implementers can be exposed. The authors were able to get insights into the challenges while conducting community extension services.

Table 7

Table 7 Accreditation

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Studen

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The institute adheres to the policy and procedures prescribed by the accrediting agency.

4.25

E

4.60

E

4.17

VG

4.67

E

4.42

E

7

2

The majority of its programs have undergone and passed the prescribed level of accreditation.

4.14

VG

4.60

E

4.27

E

4.62

E

4.56

E

2

3

The administrators, executive officials, teachers, and students are partnerships to pass the required level of accreditation.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.19

VG

4.66

E

4.44

E

3.5

4

The students are aware of the accreditation process and the accreditation result.

4.14

VG

4.60

E

4.16

VG

4.63

E

4.38

E

9.5

5

There is a budget allocated for the program accreditation of the institute.

4.23

E

4.60

E

4.19

VG

4.66

E

4.43

E

6

6

The accrediting body is well represented by each sector of the society and the government.

4.09

VG

4.80

E

4.15

VG

4.66

E

4.43

E

6

7

The result of the accreditation is released to the institute within a couple of months.

4.18

VG

4.60

E

4.21

E

4.76

E

4.44

E

3.5

8

The result of the accreditation is used by the institute to improve the program under study.

4.18

VG

4.60

E

4.23

E

4.69

E

4.43

E

6

9

The accreditation of the programs benefits the students, teachers, and the college in particular.

4.09

VG

4.60

E

4.18

VG

4.64

E

4.38

E

9.5

10

The majority of the programs of the LGCUs underwent accreditation.

4.23

E

4.80

E

4.67

E

4.66

E

4.59

E

1

Overall Weighted Mean

4.16

VG

4.36

E

4.30

E

4.67

E

4.37

E

 

The local colleges and universities led in accredited institutions; this is shared opinion among members of the school board, administrators, and students alike. With a total composite weighted mean of 4.37, one thing is certain: this is a big deal. Accredited institutions are often pinpointed as the hallmarks of educational excellence; they are indicative of quality and its pursuit by institutions. Simply stated, the local institutions of higher education scored well in accreditation assessment through the school board, administration, faculty, and students as indicated by the 4.37 composite mean.

This resonates with the views of Barone (2021) on Quality Management System (QMS): it is a structured process for achieving long-run success, focusing on customer satisfaction. This is a continuous process in which the activities are focused on improving management mistakes so that the employees perform effectively and efficiently.

2)     The Significant Difference in the Assessment of the four Groups of Respondents as to the Aforementioned Variables.

Program Offerings

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

0.6020

3

0.2007

4.0633

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

0.3828

28

0.0494

Critical value at .05 = 2.99

 

Human Resource Development

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

0.8263

3

0.2754

10.9249

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

0.7059

28

0.0252

Critical value at .05 = 2.99

 

Budget Allocation

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

2.2916

3

0.7639

13.0468

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

2.1077

36

0.0585

Critical value at .05 = 2.87

 

Student Services

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

2.9860

3

0.9953

28.4042

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

1.4017

40

0.0350

Critical value at .05 = 2.84

 

Research

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

1.8204

3

0.6068

47.4343

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

0.5629

44

0.0128

Critical value at .05 = 2.84

 

Community Extension

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

0.7066

3

0.2355

9.6347

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

0.6845

28

0.0244

Critical value at .05 = 2.99

 

        Accreditation

Sources of Variation

ss

df

MS

F-stat

Decision

VI

Between

2.1527

3

0.7176

74.5383

Reject Ho

Significant

Within

0.3466

36

0.0896

Decision

VI

Critical value

at .05 = 2.87

Reject Ho

Significant

F-stat

Overall

26.86

 

This means the school board, administration, faculty, and students reject the methods used in assessment at present by local colleges and universities for program offerings, human resource development, budget, student services, research, community outreach, and accreditation.

Given that the analysis of variance test highlighted apparent differences, it becomes important to trace where such gaps come from. This is normally done when ANOVA with groups of more than two is run and, after finding out which groups differ, follow-up tests need to be done.

When you compare the data in Table 16 with the Tukey-Kramer pairwise mean comparisons, you can readily see a significant disconnect in how the school board, administration, faculty, and students rate the status of local colleges and universities.

More specifically, there is a division in views of faculty and students in the Program Offerings. In Human Resource Development, the differences are salient when the school board is compared to faculty, administration to faculty, and faculty to students.

Result of Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparison

Program Offerings

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

1.4637

Not Significant

School Board – Faculty

2.4819

Not Significant

School Board – Students

2.1637

Not Significant

Admin – Faculty

1.0182

Not Significant

Admin – Students

3.6273

Not Significant

Faculty - Students

4.6453

Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 32) = 3.832

 

Human Resource Development

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

1.9150

Not Significant

School Board – Faculty

5.1437

Significant

School Board – Students

1.7814

Not Significant

Admin – Faculty

7.0587

Significant

Admin – Students

0.1336

Not Significant

Faculty - Students

6.9251

Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 32) = 3.832

 

Budget Allocation

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

1.3592

Not Significant

School Board – Faculty

2.1825

Not Significant

School Board – Students

5.8157

Significant

Admin – Faculty

0.8233

Not Significant

Admin – Students

7.9749

Significant

Faculty - Students

7.9982

Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 40) = 3.791

 

Student Services

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

10.5198

Significant Not

School Board – Faculty

1.2721

Significant

School Board – Students

9.0057

Significant

Admin – Faculty

9.2453

Significant

Admin – Students

1.5140

Not Significant

Faculty - Students

7.7313

Significant

 

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 44) = 3.776

 

Research

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

10.5411

Significant

School Board – Faculty

3.9511

Significant

School Board – Students

8.6013

Significant

Admin – Faculty

14.4762

Not Significant

Admin – Students

1.9398

Significant

Faculty - Students

12.5064

Not Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 48) = 3.764

 

 

 

Community Extension

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

5.3817

Significant

School Board – Faculty

0.7462

Not Significant

School Board – Students

4.4998

Significant

Admin – Faculty

6.1279

Significant

Admin – Students

0.8519

Not Significant

Faculty - Students

5.2460

Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 32) = 3.832

 

Accreditation

Groups

TK-test

Verbal Interpretation

School Board – Admin

16.0504

Significant

School Board – Faculty

2.5784

Not Significant

School Board – Students

16.2115

Significant

Admin – Faculty

13.4720

Significant

Admin – Students

0.1611

Not Significant

Faculty - Students

13.6331

Significant

Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparisons Critical Value (.05, 4, 40) = 3.791

 

Meanwhile, there appears to be a mismatch or disconnect between the perceptions of budget allocations among the various constituencies: school board members, administrators, students, and the faculty-student body.

For the groupings of school board with administration, school board with students, admin with faculty, and the rest, the assessments about Student Services vary considerably.

In Research, the main division comes between school board and admin, school board and faculty, school board and students, and admin along with students.

For Community Extension, the important differences become apparent in ratings completed by school board with admin, school board with students, admin with faculty, and faculty with students.

Similarly, for accreditations, perceptions about the status of local colleges and universities differ by school board with admin, school board with students, admin with faculty, and faculty with students.

3)     The Facilitating and Hindering Factors relative to the status of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila

Facilitating Factors

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Student

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The educational institution has an administrative organization that facilitates the attainment of its vision, mission, goals, and objectives.

4.39

HF

4.57

HF

4.88

HF

4.36

HF

4.55

HF

2.5

2

Program courses are outcomes-based as shown in the enhanced curriculum and syllabi.

4.88

HF

4.52

HF

4.88

HF

4.36

HF

4.66

HF

1

3

The institution has a Faculty Development Program as shown in the budget, training and seminars, financial assistance, honorarium, Scholarships, service credits, leave credits, and career advancement/promotion.

4.40

HF

4.55

HF

4.88

HF

4.36

HF

4.55

HF

2.5

4

There is a formal study opportunity for a faculty member and to professional organizations.

4.49

HF

4.57

HF

4.20

HF

4.36

HF

4.41

HF

13

5

There is a team that is responsible for the preparation of the formal annual budget of the institution.

4.39

HF

4.54

HF

4.80

HF

4.32

HF

4.51

HF

7

6

There is a Budget Allocation and mechanism for faculty development and training.

4.07

F

4.56

HF

4.80

HF

4.23

HF

4.42

HF

12

7

The institution has a Student Development and Services Program (SDSP) that is directed and focused on students’ welfare and development.

4.35

HF

4.56

HF

4.60

HF

4.32

HF

4.46

HF

10

8

Scholarships, allowances, and other incentives are given to deserving members.

4.12

F

4.55

HF

4.60

HF

4.27

HF

4.54

HF

4.5

9

The Research Development Center implements and evaluates the Research Agenda.

4.41

HF

4.52

HF

4.60

HF

4.36

HF

4.47

HF

8.5

10

The institution has no full support to faculty who are engaged in research that is relevant to their fields of specialization.

4.14

F

4.33

HF

4.00

F

4.27

HF

4.19

HF

14

11

The institution has a separate Extension Service Office headed by qualified faculty members/administrative employees.

4.43

HF

4.44

HF

4.60

HF

4.23

HF

4.43

HF

11

12

The institution has outreach programs, projects, and activities based on the key development areas of Environment, Disaster preparedness, Entrepreneurship, Values Formation, Health and Sanitation, Education, Recreation, Gender, and Development.

4.50

HF

4.46

HF

4.80

HF

4.41

HF

4.54

HF

4.5

13

The institute adheres to the policy and procedures prescribed by the accrediting agency.

4.39

HF

4.46

HF

4.80

HF

4.23

HF

4.47

HF

8.5

14

The administrators, executive officials, teachers, and students are partnerships to pass the required level of accreditation.

4.46

HF

4.54

HF

4.80

HF

4.32

HF

4.53

HF

6

Overall Weighted Mean

4.41

HF

4.51

HF

4.67

HF

4.31

HF

4.48

HF

The composite weighted mean of 4.48 is an indicator of a strongly held belief that some colleges and universities in Metro Manila are in a good position. This is an indication that the schools are achieving their goals at a high level and the passion for making a sound impact despite the challenge of achieving their goals.

In other words, collectively, all indicators point to the fact that the standing of the selected colleges and universities within Metro Manila is maintained or sustained by the school board, administration, faculty, and students, as denoted by the composite weighted mean score of 4.48.

Hindering Factors

Criteria

School Board

Admin

Faculty

Student

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

Colleges have no regular employment scanning as shown in the tracer scanning,  career guidance programs, and job fairs.

3.81

H

3.84

H

2.80

MH

3.68

H

3.53

H

11

2

There is no Placement Office or its equivalent to assist graduates.

3.61

H

3.86

H

3.20

MH

3.86

H

3.63

H

5.5

3

There are limited opportunities available to the full-time faculty in the graduate and post- graduate programs such as scholarships/grants  and  fellowships, research, seminars, and training.

3.77

H

3.83

H

2.80

MH

3.91

H

3.58

H

7

4

The institution does not solicit the approval of the Faculty Development Program.

3.58

H

3.82

H

3.00

MH

3.86

H

3.57

H

9

5

A system for conducting institutional quarterly budget reviews is not in place.

3.74

H

3.82

H

2.80

MH

3.91

H

3.57

H

9

6

The mechanism for performance, rewards, awards, and incentives for service excellence is not made clear to everyone.

3.81

H

3.82

H

1.40

NH

3.86

H

3.22

MH

13.5

7

Unresponsiveness of the Students Development and Services Program (SDSP) to the various needs of the students.

3.88

H

3.95

H

2.80

MH

3.95

H

3.65

H

4

8

Student’s publication does not highlight students’ achievements, activities, and performances both in academic and non- academic endeavors.

3.68

H

3.96

H

3.00

MH

4.00

H

3.66

H

3

9..

No long-range program of faculty/staff development to strengthen research capability and competence.

3.77

H

3.91

H

2.80

MH

4.27

HH

3.69

H

2

10

No collaborative and interdisciplinary research activities.

3.73

H

3.92

H

3.00

MH

3.86

H

3.63

H

5.5

11

The institution has outreach programs, projects, and activities that cover only the local level, and barangay.

3.65

H

3.98

H

2.60

MH

4.05

H

3.57

H

9

12

The institution is not aware of the conditions and needs of the outside community.

3.74

H

3.87

H

1.40

NH

4.00

H

3.25

MH

12

13

The limited budget allocated for the program accreditation of the institute is not enough.

3.76

H

4.03

H

3.04

MH

4.05

H

3.72

H

1

14

The majority of the programs of the LGCUs are not yet accredited.

3.69

H

3.93

H

1.40

NH

3.86

H

3.22

MH

13.5

Overall Weighted Mean

3.73

H

3.62

H

2.57

LH

3.94

H

3.47

H

 

The composite weighted mean of 3.47 indicates serious concerns aired by the school board, administration, faculty, and students regarding some particular barriers that affect the current status of some local universities and colleges in Metro Manila. These indicators underscore areas that require attention and improvement to enhance the institutions' effectiveness and performance. Overcoming such challenges is imperative in raising the level of both the process of teaching and the outcome for all the parties involved. As highlighted in this evaluation, proper planning is integral in moving above such challenges that have been identified.

4)     The significant relationship between the status and the hindering and facilitating factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila?

Criteria

r- value

VI

t- value

Decision

VI

Facilitating Factors

Program Offerings

0.9989

VHC

36.8970

Reject Ho

Significant

Human Resource Development

0.981

VHC

8.7581

Reject Ho

Significant

Budget Allocation

0.997

VHC

22.3103

Reject Ho

Significant

Student Services

0.9982

VHC

28.8288

Reject Ho

Significant

Research

0.9933

VHC

14.8873

Reject Ho

Significant

Community Extension

0.9705

VHC

6.9720

Reject Ho

Significant

Accreditation

0.9863

VHC

10.3559

Reject Ho

Significant

Overall

0.9893

VHC

18.4299

Reject Ho

Significant

Hindering Factors

Program Offerings

0.8321

HC

2.5986

Accept Ho

Not significant

Human Resource Development

0.7901

HC

2.2325

Accept Ho

Not significant

Budget Allocation

0.8486

HC

2.7783

Accept Ho

Not significant

Student Services

0.8008

HC

2.3158

Accept Ho

Not significant

Research

0.8143

HC

2.4289

Accept Ho

Not significant

Community Extension

0.7668

HC

2.0691

Accept Ho

Not significant

Accreditation

0.8074

HC

2.3702

Accept Ho

Not significant

Overall

0.8086

HC

2.3991

Accept Ho

Not significant

 

Table 19 presents the results of the comparison of status and facilitating factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila, where the computed Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) were as follows: 0.9989 for Program Offerings, 0.981 for Human Resource Development, 0.997 for Budget Allocation, 0.9982 for Student Services, 0.9933 for Research, 0.9705 for Community Extension, and 0.9863 for Accreditation, which were all verbally interpreted as very high correlation. In general, the computed Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) of 0.9893, was verbally interpreted as very high correlation denoting a very dependable relationship between status and the facilitating factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila.

Testing for the significance difference, the obtained value resulted in t-value of 36.8970 (Program Offerings), 8.7581 (Human Resource Development), 22.3103 (Budget Allocation), 28.8288 (Student Services), 14.8873 (Research), 6.9720 (Community Extension), and 10.3559 (Accreditation), were all rejected the null hypothesis and was verbally interpreted as significant. In general, the computed t-value of 18.4299 at a five percent level of significance with 3 degrees of freedom is greater than the critical value of 3.182. Statistical decision is to reject the null hypothesis and was interpreted as significant.

The fact that we failed to accept the null hypothesis shows that there is a strong indication of having a significant difference in the assessment of the four groups of respondents on the status in terms of Program Offerings, Human Resource Development, Budget Allocation, Student Services, Research, Community Extension, and Accreditation and the facilitating factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila.

Moreover, the status and the hindering factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila were compared to yield a computed Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) as follows: 0.8321  - Program Offerings; 0.7901  - Human Resource Development; 0.8486 - Budget Allocation; 0.8008 - Student Services; 0.8143 - Research; 0.7668 - Community Extension; and 0.8074 - Accreditation, which all were verbally interpreted as high correlation. The overall computed Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) of 0.8086 was verbally interpreted as high correlation, which means a marked relationship between status and the hindering factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila.

Also, to test for a significant difference, the obtained value provided a t-value of 2.5986 for Program Offerings, 2.2325 for Human Resource Development, and 2.7783.

The budget allocation, 2.3158; Student Services, 2.4289; Research, 2.0691; Community Extension and 2.3702 Accreditation were all accept the null hypothesis and was verbally interpreted as not significant. The overall computed t-value of 2.3991 at a five percent level of significance with 3 degrees of freedom is greater than the critical value of 3.182. The statistical decision is to accept the null hypothesis and was interpreted as not significant.

Since we failed to reject the null hypothesis, there is a strong indication of no significant difference in the assessment of the four groups of respondents on the status in terms of Program Offerings, Human Resource Development, Budget Allocation, Student Services, Research, Community Extension, and Accreditation, and the hindering factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila.

5)     Proposed Intervention Measures

The output of the study was based on the findings for sub-problems 1 and 3. The Intervention Measure features the Key Areas, Objectives, Strategies & Activities, Time Frame, Persons Involved, Fund Sources, and Performance Indicators.

6)     The Suitability, Acceptability, and Feasibility of the proposed intervention measures.

Suitability of the Proposed Intervention Measures

Criteria

Schoo Board

Admin

Faculty

Student

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The Proposed Input for the Enhancement Plan is considered a policy guidance for the implementation of the LUCs

4.2

HS

3.82

S

3.86

S

3.86

S

3.94

S

4

2

The Proposed Input for the Enhancement Plan is suitable for the operation, procedures, and system of the respective City.

4.23

HS

3.82

S

3.91

S

3.86

S

3.96

S

2

3

The Proposed Input for the Enhancement Plan is suitable for the City’s long-term plan.

4.19

S

3.83

S

3.86

S

3.91

S

3.95

S

3

4

It provides for reasonable preparatory time to enable the City elected officials to make necessary adjustments for adoption and implementation.

4.25

HS

3.86

S

3.91

S

3.86

S

3.97

S

1

5

The objectives and goals of the Proposed Input for the Enhancement Plan are suitable since they can be achieved in a reasonable time frame.

4.12

S

3.82

S

3.86

S

3.91

S

3.93

S

5

Overall Weighted Mean

4.20

HS

3.83

S

3.88

S

3.88

S

3.94

S

 

The Acceptability assessment of the proposed Intervention measure was rated Acceptable as supported by a mean value of 3.98.

Acceptability of the Proposed Intervention Measures

School

Admin

Faculty

Student

Composite

Criteria

Board

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

The Proposed Input to Intervention Measure has adequate provisions for cost-effectiveness.

4.30

HA

4.0

A

3.51

A

3.95

A

3.94

A

4

2

The Proposed Input to Intervention Measure has given due consideration to the adequacy and completeness of the facts presented, its logic, and orderliness rendering it unified and coherent.

4.22

HA

4.11

A

3.40

A

3.98

A

3.93

A

5

3

The Proposed Input to Intervention Measure is practical enough to warrant acceptance and execution.

4.24

HA

4.20

A

3.45

A

4.0

A

3.97

A

3

4

The Proposed Input to Intervention Measures will benefit the LUCs in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the program implementation.

4.32

HA

4.18

A

3.90

A

3.58

A

3.99

A

2

5

The Proposed Input to Intervention Measure is flexible enough to adapt to the different conditions for which it is intended.

4.21

HA

4.15

A

3.95

A

3.97

A

4.07

A

1

Overall Weighted Mean

4.26

HA

4.13

A

3.64

A

3.9

A

3.98

A

 

The Acceptability assessment of the proposed Intervention measure was rated Acceptable as supported by a mean value of 3.98.

Feasibility of the Proposed Intervention Measures

Criteria

School Board

Admin

Faculty

Student

Composite

Rank

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

WM

VI

1

Requirement for procedures, specific policies, and standards available through existing processes can apply to the Proposed Intervention Measure

4.10

F

4.26

HF

4.16

F

4.17

F

4.17

F

5

2

The Proposed Intervention Measure has the feature of being able to be practiced amidst the existing environment both internal and external to the organization.

4.20

HF

4.30

HF

4.32

HF

4.27

HF

4.27

HF

2

3

The Proposed Intervention Measure entails budgetary funding which the LGU appropriation can provide.

4.20

HF

4.20

HF

4.30

HF

4.23

HF

4.23

HF

3

4

Manpower, logistics, and other resources of the LUCs can be allotted effectively to fit the requirements of the Proposed Intervention Measures.

4.18

F

4.20

HF

4.18

F

4.19

F

4.18

F

4

5

The LUC facilities or outside facilities can be tapped for the needs of the Proposed Intervention Measures.

4.30

HF

4.30

HF

4.28

HF

4.29

HF

4.29

HF

1

Overall Weighted Mean

4.20

HF

4.25

HF

4.25

HF

4.23

HF

4.23

HF

 

The proposed Intervention Measure was rated Highly Feasible as supported by a mean value of 4.23.

 

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions of the study:

1)     The status of the Local Universities and colleges can be described as excellent.

2)     The respondents have a differing assessment on the status of the Local Universities and Colleges

3)     Several factors were identified that hindered the program offerings, human resource development, budget allocations, student services, research, community extension, and accreditation of the Local Universities and Colleges.

4)     There is a strong indication that there is no significant difference in the assessment of the four groups of respondents on the status in terms of Program Offerings, Human Resource Development, Budget Allocation, Student Services, Research, Community Extension, and Accreditation and the hindering factors of selected local universities and colleges in Metro Manila.

5)     The proposed Intervention Measure was found suitable, acceptable, and feasible; therefore, it may be adopted by the LUCs management.

6)     The intervention for Sustainable LUCs can be implemented.

  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

 

REFERENCES

ABET. (2023). ABET Accredits 110 Additional Programs in 2023.

Accrediting Agency of Chartered Universities and Colleges in the Philippines. (2014). Accreditation Survey Instrument for Graduate Education. Quezon City: Accrediting Agency of Chartered Universities and Colleges in the Philippines. 

Acido1, J. V., and Kilongkilong, D. A. (2022). Resource Management Practices of a Public Higher Institution in the Philippines. University of San Jose-Recoletos, Cebu City, Philippines. 

Alstete, J. W., Flavian, H., and Petrova, K. (2019). Quality Assurance in Education. Emerald Publishing Limited. 

Article XIV, Section 5 (para. 2) of the 1987 Constitution. (1987). Government of the Philippines.  

Asif, M., Miao, Q., Jameel, A., Manzoor, F., and Hussain, A. (2020). How Ethical Leadership Influences Employee Creativity: A Parallel Multiple Mediation Model. Current Psychology. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00819-9   

Avila, L. B. (2017). Total Quality Management (TQM) Practices of School Administrators About School Performance Among Teacher Education Institutions. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 2426. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i6.2426   

Barone, A. (2021). Total Quality Management. Business Essential Journal, 2, 13–14. 

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: E. P. Dutton. 

Bautista, A. M. (2021). School Head's Financial Proficiency and School Performance. Center for Research and Development Journal, 2(3), 34–39. 

Bayudan-Dacuycuy, C. G., Orbeta Jr., A. C., and Ortiz, M. K. P. (2023). The Quest for Quality and Equity in the Philippine Higher Education: Where to from Here? PIDS Policy Notes: EDCOM 2. ISSN 2508-0865 (Electronic). 

CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, s. 2012. (2012). Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education Through an Outcomes-Based and Typology-Based QA. Commission on Higher Education. 

CMO No. 40, s. 2008. (2008). Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education Institutions. Commission on Higher Education.  

CSC MC 25, s. 2017. (2017). Status of Appointments to Faculty Positions in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) Where There is Dearth of Holders of Master’s Degree in Specific Fields. Civil Service Guide: A Compilation of Issuances on Philippine Civil Service. Retrieved June 24, 2024.

Cadwell, Y., et al. (2018). School Management Competencies: Perception and Self-Efficiency Beliefs of School Principals. Creative Education Journal, 2(3), 47–51. 

Calmorin, N. A. (2023). Facilitating and Hindering Factors in the Implementation of Inclusive Education: A Research Review. New Beast Phil: Philippines. 

Cimene, F. T., and Aladano, A. N. (2022). Leadership Perspective from the Philippines: Its Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice. 

Clayton, A. M. H., and Radcliffe, N. J. (2015). Sustainability: A Systems Approach. London: Routledge. 

Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.  

El-Khawas, E. (2014). Inside Quality Reform: Early Results on Using Outcomes for Improvement. Quality in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.926083   

Ezeh, C. R. (2020). Impact of Financial Management on Effective School Administration in Enugu Education Zone (Master’s thesis). Institute of Management and Technology.  

Farhana, F., Ahmed, A., and Momen, A. (2022). Evolution of Quality Assurance Practices in Enhancing the Quality of Open and Distance Education in a Developing Nation: A Case Study. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-02-2022-0025   

Flavian, H. (2019). Mediation and Thinking Development in Schools: Theories and Practices for Education. Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787560208    

Galorio, D. M., Cruz-Español, R., Agapito, J. J. J., Esguerra, A. G., and Esguerra, J. G. (2023). Community Extension Programs Among Selected State Universities and Colleges, and Private Higher Education Institutions: A Case of Bukidnon. University of the Visayas, Philippines.  

Gamboa, A. G. (2022). Institutional Sustainability of Local Colleges and Universities (LCUs) in Region: An Evaluation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 3(5). https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.03.05.12   

Ganaden, L. R. (2020). School Heads' Management Competencies and Its Impact on the School Performance: Basis for an Intervention Plan (Master’s Thesis). Batangas State University, Batangas. 

Gardner, M. (2024). New Internationalization Strategy Aims to Build Resilience. University World News: Global Window on Higher Education.   

Gibton, A. E., and Golding, S. P. (2017). Effective Management of Material Resources in Technology Education Programmes: A New Approach to Educational Administration, Planning, and Supervision. Onitsha: Cape Publishers International Ltd.  

Girmanová, L., Šolc, M., Blaško, P., and Petrík, J. (2022). Quality Management System in Education: Application of Quality Management Models in Educational Organization—Case Study from the Slovak Republic. Standards, 2(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/standards2040031   

Goetsch, D. L., and Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality Management for Organizational Excellence. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. 

Gregorio, E. B. (2019). Resource Management in Schools: Practices of the School Administrators in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 5, 56–58.  

Lantajo, G. M. A. (2022). Factors Affecting Total Quality Management Among Government Offices During COVID-19 Pandemic. SMMC Higher Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.18868/md-v9-a1   

Magnaye, R. P., and Ylagan, A. P. (2021). Effectiveness and Impact of Community Extension Program of One Philippine Higher Education Institution. Asia Pacific Journal of Academic Research in Business Administration, 7(1). 

Manoj, K. V. (2016). Importance of Leadership in Total Quality Management. Vistas of Education. Mizoram University: NE Books and Publishers. 

Mansoor, Z., and Williams, M. J. (2021). Systems Approaches to Public Service Delivery: Lessons from Health, Education, and Infrastructure. 

Mendoza, D. A. (2019). Leadership Performance of Public Secondary School Department Heads in the Division of Cavite: Basis for a Strategic Model (Doctoral Dissertation). Pacific Intercontinental College.  

Meniano, S. (2024). CHEd Exec Says Tertiary Students Need More Facilities. Philippine News Agency.  

Molina, A. D. (2015). The Virtues of Administration: Values and the Practice of Public Service. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 37(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2015.999636   

Muliati, A., Sihotang, W., Octaviany, and Medan, D. (2022). Effectiveness of School Resources Management in Improving the Quality of Education. Education and Applied Multidisciplinary Research Journal. Universitas Negeri Medan.   

Nguyen, L., Tran, T., Pham, T., Nguyen, T., Le, H., Trinh, T., and Nghiem, T. (2021). Factors Affecting Successful Quality Assurance Implementation in Vietnamese Higher Education: A Qualitative Study. The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 4564. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4564   

Ombudsman.gov.ph. (2016). Good Governance Creates a Strong Future for an Organization.  

Orpiano, M. Z., and Dacal, R. L. (2020). Educational Leadership and Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) in the Municipality of Rosales. University of Pangasinan, Philippines. 

Palestina, R. L., Pangan, A. D., and Ancho, I. V. (2020). Curriculum Implementation Facilitating and Hindering Factors: The Philippines Context. International Journal of Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v13i2.25340   

Patalinghug, M. E., Hortilano, E., and Patalinghug, H. F. (2021). Students’ Satisfaction on School Services in a State College in the Philippines. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v11.i2.202103   

Perry, B. F. (2022). Teacher’s Self-Efficacy for Data-Driven Decision Making (Doctoral Dissertation, Old Dominion University). https://doi.org/10.25777/0fcb-hk12   

Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2022). Local Colleges Need to Innovate to Compete Globally.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2018). Philippine Statistical Development Program 2018–2023. Government of the Philippines. 

Phumphongkhochasorn, P., Damnoen, S., Dhammavajiramedhi, P., Srichan, P. W., and Udomdhammajaree, P. (2022). Educational Quality Assurance and School Management Standards According to International. Eastern Institute of Technology Suvarnabhumi, Thailand. 

Poral, R. S. (2023). Financial Management, Material Management, and Organizational Performance in the Division of Lipa City: Basis for a Sustainable Program (Doctoral Dissertation, Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology). Philippines. 

QuestionPro. (2021). Convenience sampling: Definition, Applications, Advantages, Method, and Examples. Retrieved from   

Quitoras, M. C. L., And Abuso, J. E. (2021). Best Practices of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) for the development of Research Culture in the Philippines. Pedagogical Research, 6(1), em0087. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/9355   

Quodalaa, F. A., Dela Cruz, R. G., Presnedi, E. E., and Acero, E. V. (2021). Local Colleges and Universities Faculty Needs Assessment: A Study Toward Proposed Faculty Program. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR).

Qutni, D., Kristiawan, M., and Fitriani, Y. (2021). Human Resource Management in Improving the Quality of Education. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 2(2), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.v2i2.132   

Republic Act No. 10931. (2016). Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act. Congress of the Philippines. 

Rosenbaum, A. (Ed.). (2015). In Quest of Excellence: Approaches to Enhancing the Quality of Public Administration Education and Training. United Nations and International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration. 

Salazar, T. (2020). An Impact Study of the Community Extension Programs in a State College in the Philippines. Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges, Philippines.  

Sanfo, J.-B. (2020). Leaving no Place Behind: Community Participation and Primary School Students’ Learning Achievements in Burkina Faso’s Small-Scale Gold Mining Communities. International Journal of Educational Development Research, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100010   

Sumy, J. M., and Giridharam, N. M. (2017). Financial Management: Training Needs of Public Secondary School Principals in Machakos County, Kenya. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(13), 136–141. 

Tamondong, R. S. (2020). Managerial Skills and Leadership Performance of School Heads in the Division of Quezon City: Basis for a Proposed Training Plan (Doctoral Dissertation, EARIST). 

Tingco, M. D. (2021). Re-Examining the Accreditation System for Public Administration Education: Basis for Future Reforms. Pangasinan State University. 

Torneo, A. (2016). Preliminary Assessment of the Impacts of the Performance Based Incentive System (PBIS) on the Philippine Department of Education: A Case Study of Employee Response to Policy Reform. Paper Presented at the 2016 KAPS Autumn and International Conference, Olympic Parktel, Seoul, South Korea.  

UNESCO. (2023). Education Finance Watch: Special Edition for the African Union Year of Education 2024. Unesdoc Digital Library.  

Vrba, J. (2024). Human Resources Management Impact on College Education Quality. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(3), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i31284   

Walston, J., and Conley, M. (2022). Practical Measurement for Continuous Improvement in the Classroom: A Toolkit for Educators. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest: American Institutes for Research.   

Workhuman. (2023). What is human resource development (HRD): 2023 Complete Guide.

Creative Commons Licence This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

© ShodhGyan 2026. All Rights Reserved.