What research communities say about Merger121Ab133

What research communities say about Merger, are you in or out on the proposed

merger of USEP, SPAMAST, DOSCST, and DNSC?

Prof. Sherlito C. Sablei, 2012)

ABSTRACT

The study intends to present findings of the research communities on mergers of schoolsto enlighten everyone with the end in view that they may be able to formulate a basis for areasoned judgment for after all man is a rational being endowed with the power to thinkreasonably. Data that that those institutions which do not have a clearly defined and conciselycommunicated vision, mission, and well defined and obtainable goals can have a profoundlynegative impact on the students, faculty, and staff of the educational institutions broughttogether by restructuring; continued savings are possible without further consolidation of schooldistricts; to operate these larger districts the governance and administrative structures took on agreater role to meet the challenges of overseeing a larger entity; local school and other municipalofficials continue to find ways to gain added efficiency of operations without having to resort toconsolidating or reducing the number of school entities; there is no evidence that consolidationof schools will result in reduced expenses; there are no documented cases of financial savingsfrom merger/consolidation; merger/consolidation has had a negative impact on studentachievement, and the potential for adverse economic impact on smaller communities that losefacilities exists; evidence and analysis suggest that there may be benefits to larger college sizebut these benefits are not guaranteed, and the impact of college mergers on choice andcompetition ...is ambiguous; there is no obvious relationship between merger and collegeperformance, for any performance measure, the issue is so complex -- due to the interplaybetween factors such as numbers of students, student characteristics, geography, populationchange, technology, and politics -- that it would be nearly impossible to develop a single policyaddressing the organization of all school districts that would address all factors simultaneously.One of the issues that researchers have studied over the years is the optimum size of schooldistricts -- that is the cost point at which per student spending would be minimized whilestudent achievement would be maximized -- but no one has ever suggested that existingdistricts be reorganized so that every district would be of optimum size, this reflects bothconcerns with the underlying research, which often does not consider student achievement, aswell as the political ramifications of redrawing district boundaries. Taxonomic analysis revealedthe following theoretical attributes of the merger: Preconditions of merger: Clarity of Strategicdirection, Long Term goal, Negative Economy of Scale: Satisficing scale, Challenges onGovernance and Administrative Structure, centralization, tradeoffs: decreasing thenumber of schools increases cost, and increases organizational size, merger increasessize and reduces benefits and other outcomes (academic performance). Hence, mergingUSEP, SPAMAST, DOSCST, and DNSC may only result to negative outcomes. Thematic analysisrevealed that merger makes it difficult for students to access higher education, merger iscostly to maintain, and very cumbersome to run its governance and administration.

2

1. Introduction

In view of the recent pronouncements from CHED on the proposed policy

HB 5311 of 2011 creating a regional university system in region x1(RUS) merging

USEP, SPAMAST, DOSCST, and DNSC, varied reactions propped up speculating

on the advantages and disadvantages of merger. It is unfortunate that not a

single study is presented by the proponents and those who opposed. It is

therefore the intention of this simple research paper- one might call it a working

paper to present the findings of the research communities on mergers of schools.

It further intends to enlighten everyone with the end in view that they may be

able to formulate a basis for a reasoned judgment for after all man is a rational

being endowed with the power to think reasonably.

2. Scope and Limitation

This study is focused on the current move of CHED and Congressman

Ungab to merge the four state universities and colleges in Region X1 namely,

USEP, SPAMAST, DOSCST, and DNSC as stipulated in HB 5311 OF 2011. It

utilizes research literatures on post merger studies conducted by the research

communities. Unfortunately, there are no existing post merger studies on

school mergers conducted in the Philippines; hence, the researcher is

constrained to cite Philippine experience. However, with the wealth of

researches conducted by the scientific communities in the United States and

other parts of the world such constraint is for a moment resolved. Specifically,

the bone of contention is limited to whether or not merging schools in the

3

public sector could result to better savings, lower operation costs, improved

quality of academic outcomes.

3. Definition of terms

In this study, school mergers, integration, and consolidation have to be

defined contextually. Contextual definition is a definition of a word or symbol

by explaining the meaning of the phrase or statement in which it occursii , which

means that merger, integration, and consolidation are acts of

combining into an integral wholeiii, of integrating an organization, place of

business, school, etc.iv the merger of two or more...structures... interestsv.

Hence, there is no exact definition of the terms but it is surmised that from

the meanings extractable from the words or phrase they could mean

interchangeably. So, the terms could be defined as:

Merger implies the combining of two or more...schools with the intent of

eliminating an administrative group and/or duplicate programs.

Consolidation implies wholesale reduction/elimination in the number of

...schools and closure of ...duplicate programs, and the like.

Integration implies combining into integral whole two or more

organizations or schools to come with one structure.

4Method Used

This study used qualitative research design utilizing meta-synthesis as a

method. Meta-synthesis is a qualitative method from which the researcher

interprets research findings on the same vein or similar phenomena to be able to

contribute to the body of knowledge.vi This method had been used by experts to

be able generate something from a given research findings. This was confirmed by

Sandelowski, Margarete and Julie Barroso (2007), stating that,

“...qualitative meta-synthesis is an interpretive integration of qualitativefindings in primary research reports that are in the form of interpretivesyntheses of data: either conceptual/thematic descriptions or interpretive

explanations”vüIn this study the researcher utilized taxonomic analysis to show the

theoretical characteristics of research findings expressed in reportsviii. Taxonomic

analysis is a form of inductive extrapolation - the starting point from which to

draw inferences or conclusions about something unknown, useful for theory

development.ix Sandelowski, Margarete and Julie Barroso (2007) pointed out

that,

“In contrast to effect sizes, which show the quantitative range of findings,taxonomies show the conceptual range of findings and provide a foundationfor the development of conceptual descriptions and models, theories, orworking hypotheses”.

In this research taxonomic analysis provides the methodological parameters

to be able to arrive at conclusions.

5

4.1 Sources of Post Merger Studies

Presented in this table are the research literatures on post-merger

studies.

No. Research Researcher Yearconducted

1 . The Impact of Mergers inHigher Educationon Employees andOrganizational Culture

Kristen KoontzA Research PaperSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for theMaster of Science DegreeIn Applied Psychology, The GraduateSchoolUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout

May, 2009

2 . Should the State MandateLarger School Districts IsBigger Really Better?

A discussion paper by Joseph V.Oravitz, retired Pennsylvania SchoolBoards Association executivedirector (1982‐2001). Oravitz hasmorethan 40 years of public schoolexperience as a business teacher,department chair, administrativeassistant to the superintendent forbusiness affairs, PSBA director ofmanagement services and PSBAexecutive director.

2009

3 . Merger/Consolidation ofSchool Districts:Does it save money andimprove studentachievement?

Pennsylvania School BoardsAssociation, PA,USA

2009

4 . The Evidence Base onCollegeSize and Mergers in theFurther Education Sector

Laura PayneDepartment for Innovation,Universities and Skills, © CrownCopyright 2008Ref: DIUS Research Report 08-19© Crown Copyright 2008www.dius.gov.uk/researchPublished by the Department forInnovation,Universities and Skills

DIUS ResearchReport 08 19,2008

M.M. BothaFaculty of Education, Vista University,Private Bag X613, Port Elizabeth, 6000South Africa, South African Journal ofEducation, 2001, 21(4) [email protected]

5 . Models for mergers inhigher education

2001

6 . An Exploration of DistrictConsolidation

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates,Inc.

2009

6

1120 Lincoln, Suite1101 Denver, Colorado80203 May, 2009

7. School Consolidation: ASTUDY BY THE OHIOSCHOOL BOARDSASSOCIATION

Ohio School Board Association January, 2011

8.A PhenomenologicalStudy of Rural SchoolConsolidation

Nitta, K., Holley, M., & Wrobel, S.(2010). A phenomenological study ofrural school consolidation. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 25(2), 1-19. Retrieved fromhttp://jrre.psu.edu/articles/25-2.pdf

2010

9. School Consolidation inPennsylvania:An Analysis of GovernorRendell’s Policy Proposal

Erin McHenry-SorberThe Pennsylvania State UniversityMcHenry-McHenry-Sorber, E. (2009,Summer). School consolidation inPennsylvania: An analysis of GovernorRendell's policy proposal. The Beacon:A Publication of the PennsylvaniaSchool Study Council, 5(4).Posted on www.psba.org withpermission of the author.

2009

10. Merger/Consolidation ofSchool Districts:Does it save money andimprove studentAchievement?

David W. Davare, Ph.D.Director of Research ServicesPennsylvania School BoardAssociation

2009

4.2 Framework of Taxonomic Analysis

Research findings will be analyzed using this taxonomic framework:

Concepts/TheoreticalAttribution

Initial Analysis

Thematic Analysis

ConstructsCode

7

The researcher extracts specific findings from the initial merger analysis

of the research communities then conceptualizes, constructs variables, and

codifies meanings from the concepts and constructs drawn. And finally, a

reinterpretation of the whole process, using concept mapping leading to a deep

extraction of possibilities or frontiers of embedded ideas to formulate

hypothetical statements, will be conducted.

4. Presentation Interpretation and Analysis of Initial Findings

5.1 The Case of the Minnesota state universities, community colleges andtechnical colleges merged to form what is now known as Minnesota StateColleges and Universities (MnSCU).

The study on the “Impact of Mergers in Higher Education on Employees

and Organizational Culture” revealed that mergers “without a clearly defined

and concisely communicated vision, mission, and well defined and obtainable

goals results to have a profoundly negative impact on the students, faculty and

staff of the educational institutions brought by restructuring”x of the merged

institutions of higher learning. Within the framework of this finding, the

primordial condition for a successful merger is well defined vision, mission,

and goals. The case of the merged Minnesota State Universities, Community

Colleges, and Technical Colleges was an example of a merger from which the

merger of institutions does not have a clearly defined goal. This suggests that

merging without measurable indicators of purpose would only result in

8

organizational disarray and turbulence among stakeholders of merged

universities and colleges.

Table 2: Research findings on the post merger study on the case of theMinnesota state universities, community colleges and technicalcolleges merged to form what is now known as Minnesota StateColleges and Universities (MnSCU).

Research Findings

The Minnesota stateuniversities, community collegesand technical colleges merged toform what is now known asMinnesota State Colleges andUniversities (MnSCU).

The case study provides anexample of a merger in highereducation and demonstratesthat those institutions which donot have a clearly defined andconcisely communicated vision,mission, and well defined andobtainable goals can have a

The Impac t o f Mergers in Higher profoundly negative impact onEducation on Employees and the students, faculty, and staffOrganizational Culture of the educational institutions

brought together byrestructuring.

Sources used for this study weredrawn from published literaturein the field of Organizationalchange.

4.2 Should the State Mandate Larger School Districts: Is Bigger ReallyBetter?

Shown in table three were the findings of Oravits (2001) on the study,

Should the State Mandate Larger School Districts: Is Bigger Really Better?, which

he conducted in 2001. His findings revealed that “continued savings are

9

possible without further consolidation of school districts. To operate these larger

districts the governance and administrative structures took on a greater role to

meet the challenges of overseeing a larger entity. Local school and other

municipal officials continue to find ways to gain added efficiency of operations

without having to resort to consolidating or reducing the number of school

entities.” This simply suggests that there is no empirical basis to state that

savings can be attributed to merger. This is due to the fact that schools can

continue to save even without merging them. Furthermore, operating a bigger

school can be an uphill undertaking considering the complexities and other

organistic problems that may arise in the areas of governance and

administrative dimensions. And that local authorities have their own generic

strategies to gain added efficiency of operations without having to resort to

consolidating or reducing the number of school entities. Hence, the increase of

organizational size being the concomitant effect of merger could only jeopardize

the ideals of governance and administration.

Table 3: Research findings on the post merger study on “Should the StateMandate Larger School Districts: Is Bigger Really Better?”xi

Research Findings

• Continued savings are possiblewithout further consolidation of schooldistricts.

• To operate these larger districts thegovernance and administrativestructures took on a greater role to

Should the State Mandate Larger School meet the challenges of overseeing aDistricts larger entity.Is Bigger Really Better?

• Local school and other municipalofficials continue to find ways to gainadded efficiency of operations withouthaving to resort to consolidating orreducing the number of school entities.

10

The findings of Oravits (2001) were confirmed by the findings of the

Pennsylvania School Board Association in 2009. Similar findings were drawn

that there is no evidence that merging of schools will result in reduced expenses;

there are no documented cases of financial savings from merger; it had a

negative impact on student achievement; the potential for adverse economic

impact on smaller communities that lose facilities exists. This suggests that

merger of schools did not result to state savings, and better student

achievement.

Table 4: Research findings on the post merger study on “Merger/Consolidation ofSchool Districts: Does it save money and improve studentachievement?”xii

Research Findings

There is no evidence thatconsolidation of schools will result in

Merger/Consolidation of School reduced expenses.Districts: Does it save money and There are no documented cases ofimprove student achievement? financial savings from

merger/consolidation.Merger/consolidation has had anegative impact on studentachievement.The potential for adverse economicimpact on smaller communities thatlose facilities exists.

The study of Laura Payne Department for Innovation, Universities and

Skills, UK in 2008 found that “...evidence and analysis suggest that there may be

benefits to larger college size but these benefits are not guaranteed, and the impact

of college mergers on choice and competition ...is ambiguous. There is no

11

obvious relationship between whether a college has merged and college

performance, ... There is no evidence that merged colleges perform any better than

colleges that have not merged, or better than smaller colleges.” Dr. Payne’s

findings pointed out in clearer terms the falsity of assured benefits of school

mergers.

Table 5: Research findings of the post merger study on “The Evidence Base onCollege Size and Mergers in the Further Education Sector.”xiii

Research Findings

Evidence and analysis suggest thatthere may be benefits to larger college

“The Evidence Base on College Size size but these benefits are notand Mergers in the Further guaranteed, and the impact of collegeEducation Sector.” mergers on choice and competition

...is ambiguous.

There is no obvious relationshipbetween whether a college has mergedand college performance, for anyperformance measure.

There is no evidence that mergedcolleges perform any better thancolleges that have not merged, orbetter than smaller colleges.

The study of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Incorporated in 2009

focused on the issue of determining the optimum size of merged schools

considering factors as numbers of students, student characteristics, geography,

population change, technology, and politics. They found that it would be nearly

impossible to develop a single policy addressing the organization of all school

districts that would address all the factors stated above simultaneously.

Moreover, the study contends that researchers have studied over the years the

12

optimum size of school districts -- that is the cost point at which per student

spending would be minimized while student achievement would be maximized --

but no one has ever suggested that existing districts be reorganized so that every

district would be of optimum size. It is therefore surmised that from the point of

view of economic valuation-to determine the cost point, it is almost impossible

to determine the optimum level of size of merger, meaning the questions on

how many schools have to be merged given all factors to be considered,

because of the complexity of interplay of these factors. The study concluded

that (if these factors are not taken into account in the equation of merger

policy) merger is just a waste of time and resources.

Table 6: Research findings of the post merger study on “An Exploration of DistrictConsolidation”xiv

Research Findings

The issue is so complex -- due to the interplaybetween factors such as numbers of students,student characteristics, geography, populationchange, technology, and politics -- that itwould be nearly impossible to develop a singlepolicy addressing the organization of all schooldistricts that would address all factorssimultaneously. One of the issues thatresearchers have studied over the years is theoptimum size of school districts -- that is the

“An Exploration of District Consolidation” cost point at which per student spendingwould be minimized while

studentachievement would be maximized -- but noone has ever suggested that existing districtsbe reorganized so that every district would beof optimum size.This reflects both concerns with theunderlying research, which often does notconsider student achievement, as well as thepolitical ramifications of redrawing districtboundaries.

13

As presented in this table, the findings of the Ohio School Board

Association revealed that consolidation or merger does not result to better student

academic performance and that no documented savings were derived, and these

are not empirically supported. And that Local decision is still very critical in the

drawing of strategic directions of schools.

Table 7: Research findings of the post merger study on “School Consolidation: Astudy by the Ohio School Boards Association.” xv

Research Findings

• Few post-consolidation studiesdocument actual savings. An analysisof school consolidation results

published by the Fordham Institute(2003) states that “consolidation

“School Consolidation: A study by the promises lower costs and taxes and

Ohio School Boards better student performance, but

Association.” neither happens.” Studies reportedfrom 1960 through 2004 fail to showany conclusive evidence that

consolidation of small districtsnecessarily reduces fiscal expenditureson a per-pupil basis.

• Studies conducted in Pennsylvaniahave found an adverse impact on

academic achievement and a sense ofloss of community in consolidateddistricts. Local choice is the criticalelement in the process.

In this table (table 8) Nitta, K., Holley, M., & Wrobel, S. (2010) of

Pennsylvania State University Education Policy Research Institute, analyzed

the impact of merger on the experiences of students and teachers in

absorbing the merger conditions. It highlighted the difficulty of teachers

and students in moving from one school to another as a result of redefining

14

programs and work assignments due to merger of schools in the rural

communities.

Table 8: Research findings of the post merger study on “A Phenomenological Studyof Rural School Consolidation”xvi

Research Findings

“A Phenomenological Study of RuralSchool Consolidation” The consolidation experience tended to

be most difficult for moving teachersand students.

The analysis of McHenry-Sorber, E. (2009, summer), as presented in this

table (table 9) tended to reveal the following: consolidation would result to

greater cost, consolidation of small schools and districts into larger schools

and districts has the potential to negatively impact student achievement, the

factors which affect student achievement to the greatest extent appear to

include the following characteristics: smaller school size (300-500 students);

smaller class size, primarily at elementary schools; a challenging curriculum;

and, highly qualified teachers in every classroom, states with larger schools

and school districts tend to have lower student achievement and social

outcomes and that this trend is apparent in larger schools. This clearly

manifests the basic fact that merger of schools be it in the form of integration

consolidation or amalgamation does not metamorphose into lower cost, better

student achievement and other related outcomes.

15

Table 9: Research findings of the post merger study on “School Consolidation inPennsylvania: An Analysis of Governor Rendell’s Policy Proposal.”xvii

Research Findings

• Consolidations would result in greatercosts.

• Consolidation of small schools anddistricts into larger schools anddistricts has the potential to negatively

impact student achievement (Bard,Gardener, & Wieland, 2006; Lyson,2002).

• Research suggests that the factorswhich affect student achievement tothe greatest extent appear to include

School Consolidation in Pennsylvania: the following characteristics: smaller

An Analysis of Governor Rendell’s school size (300-500 students); smaller

Policy Proposal class size, primarily at elementaryschools; a challenging curriculum;and, highly qualified teachers in everyclassroom.

• It has also been shown that stateswith larger schools and school districtstend to have lower studentachievement and social outcomes.

•

•

This trend is also apparent for largerschools in low SES [socioeconomic]communities. (Plucker, Spradlin,Magaro, Chien, & Zapf, 2007, p. 2)

5. Taxonomic Analysis of Initial Findings

As stated in the methodology, taxonomic analysis is used to draw out

theoretical attribution of the initial findings using thematic analysis, hence, in

this research, it is focusing on the characteristics of initial merger findings.

Presented in table 10 were the extrapolated theoretical attributes of

merger. The Minnesota state universities, community colleges and technical

colleges’ merger indicated unclear strategic direction and long term goal

specification as the main reason of problematic merger. All other findings were

theoretically characterized with negative economy of scale: satisficing scale,

16

and challenges on governance and administrative structure, decentralization, and

the tradeoffs between sizes to cost, size to performance.

Table 10: Theoretical attributes of the initial merger findings of the researchcommunities.

Number Initial Merger Findings of the Research Communities Theoretical Attributes

1. The Minnesota state universities, community colleges andtechnical colleges merged to form what is now known asMinnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU).

The case study provides an example of a merger in highereducation and demonstrates that those institutions whichdo not have a clearly defined and conciselycommunicated vision, mission, and well defined andobtainable goals can have a profoundly negative impacton the students, faculty, and staff of the educationalinstitutions brought together by restructuring.

Sources used for this study were drawn from publishedliterature in the field of Organizational change.

Preconditions of merger

Clarity of Strategic direction

Long Term goal

2. Continued savings are possible without furtherconsolidation of school districts.

To operate these larger districts the governance andadministrative structures took on a greater role tomeet the challenges of overseeing a larger entity.

Local school and other municipal officials continue to findways to gain added efficiency of operations without havingto resort to consolidating or reducing the number ofschool entities.

Negative Economy of Scale:Satisficing scale

Challenges on Governance andAdministrative Structure

Decentralization

3. There is no evidence that consolidation of schools will resultin reduced expenses:

There are no documented cases of financial savings frommerger/consolidation.

Merger/consolidation has had a negative impact onstudent achievement.

The potential for adverse economic impact on smallercommunities that lose facilities exists.

trade offs:

decreasing the number of schoolsincreases cost, and increasesorganizational size

4. Evidence and analysis suggest that there may be benefitsto larger college size but these benefits are notguaranteed, and the impact of college mergers on choiceand competition ...is ambiguous.

There is no obvious relationship between whether acollege has merged and college performance, for anyperformance measure.

There is no evidence that merged colleges perform anybetter than colleges that have not merged, or better thansmaller colleges.

Trade Off:

Merger increases size and reducesbenefits and other outcomes(academic performance)

5. Few post-consolidation studies document actual savings.An analysis of school consolidation results published bythe Fordham Institute (2003) states that “consolidationpromises lower costs and taxes and better studentperformance, but neither happens.” Studies reportedfrom 1960 through 2004 fail to show any conclusiveevidence that consolidation of small districts necessarilyreduces fiscal expenditures on a per-pupil basis.

Studies conducted in Pennsylvania have found anadverse impact on academic achievement and a sense ofloss of community in consolidated districts. Local choiceis the critical element in the process.

Negative Economy of Scale:Satisficing scale

Challenges on Governance andAdministrative Structure

Decentralization

6. Few post-consolidation studies document actual savings.An analysis of school consolidation results published bythe Fordham Institute (2003) states that “consolidation

Negative Economy of Scale:Satisficing scale

17

•

promises lower costs and taxes and better studentperformance, but neither happens.” Studies reportedfrom 1960 through 2004 fail to show any conclusiveevidence that consolidation of small districts necessarilyreduces fiscal expenditures on a per-pupil basis.Studies conducted in Pennsylvania have found anadverse impact on academic achievement and a sense ofloss of community in consolidated districts. Local choiceis the critical element in the process.

Challenges on Governance andAdministrative Structure

Decentralization

7. • Consolidations would result in greater costs. Tradeoffs:• Consolidation of small schools and districts into larger

schools and districts has the potential to negatively decreasing the number of schoolsimpact student achievement (Bard, Gardener, &Wieland, 2006; Lyson, 2002).

increases cost, andorganizational size

increases

• Research suggests that the factors which affect studentachievement to the greatest extent appear to include thefollowing characteristics: smaller school size (300-500students); smaller class size, primarily at elementaryschools; a challenging curriculum; and, highly qualifiedteachers in every classroom.

• It has also been shown that states with larger schoolsand school districts tend to have lower studentachievement and social outcomes.

• This trend is also apparent for larger schools in low SES

•[socioeconomic] communities. (Plucker,Spradlin, Magaro, Chien, & Zapf, 2007, p. 2)

7. Variables construction

The next step of analysis is constructing variables from the extrapolated

theoretical attributes generated from initial findings. Variables are generated

through meaning extractions (thematic analysis) from the general attributes

through the process of concept mapping. Thematic analysis revealed two

opposing views that are derivatives of merger, namely, the pull towards

institutional control to attain economic efficiency and the pull towards

democratization to attain accessibility of higher education. Furthermore

thematic analysis revealed the notion that institutional control is a function of

economic of scale, centralization, bureaucratization, technocracy, and

dependency, while democratization is more of a holistic strategy, small is

beautiful theory, decentralization, people’s based objectives, and

empowerment.

18

Figure 1: Concept Map

8.0 Conclusions

On the basis of the analysis presented, the following conclusions

were drawn:

1) Merger of higher education institutions does not promise better results

in terms of economic efficiency and performance.

Small is beautifulPull toCentralizationand control

Bureaucratization

Technocratic

Long Term goal

Economy of Scale

Satisficing scale

Challenges onGovernanceand AdministrativeStructure

Decentralization

Tradeoffs

Size versus Outcomes

Merger ofSchools

People’sbased

Merger Theoretical Attributes

Preconditions of merger

Clarity of StrategicDirection

StrategicDirection

Pull todecentralization

Economicof Scale

Holistic

Dependency

creating

Empowering

Institutional Control

Democratization

19

2) Merger of schools initiated by exogenous forces may be anchored on the

assumption that it is intended for the satisfaction of some ends and

interests.

3) Merger of schools departs from basic framework of democratizing access

to higher education in the public sector.

4) Merger makes it difficult for the poor students to access higher

education.

5) Governance and administration of public higher education institutions

are best undertaken within the framework of local context and

conditions.

6) Education when viewed as a means for and end defeats the very reason

why man needs education. Education is a good in itself because it

makes man more human.

House Bill 5311

Therefore, in the context of House Bill 5311 a bill proposing a regional

university system in Region X1(DRSUS) merging USEP, SPAMAST, DOSCST, and

DNSC, it is obfuscating and epistemologically flawed to continue to pursue

merger/integration/amalgamation (all are interchangeably to mean the same

thing) given the unfavorable findings of the research communities and the

magnitude of implications that cleave to it.

20

The Iatra-genesis in the Higher Education Policy Framework

Iatragenesis is a term which is associated to medical science. The field of

medicine defines it as “physician-causing ills”xviii, or administering a wrong

medicine to a right illness. The House Bill 5311 for the sake of argument may

not be the right cure of the problems facing the State Universities and Colleges

in the Country. The constitutional imperative is very clear: the state shall give

highest budgetary priority to education. Hence, this must include higher

education institutions. So, there is no problem. House Bill 5311 is a physician-

causing ill to State Universities and Colleges in Region X1. The gradual

reduction of MOOExix is just one of the strategies of the state to increase the

burden of State Universities and Colleges to become self-sufficient. This is what

CHED actually advocates, corporatization of SUC’s. But transferring the

burden to the individual SUC’S to craft strategic moves, let say, corporate

strategy, to increase revenues may be a fine one but such requires capacities

along the area of research and development. But the question remains a puzzle

to be reckoned with, is it not drifting away from the constitutional imperative,

guaranteed by the constitution?

The fiscal strategy of corporatization may work well with bigger SUC’s but

what about smaller ones. So, since, this strategy is questioned by some policy

makers, the next strategy was an organistic one. Organistic since it has to

address the organizational and structural dimensions of SUC’s. Let the smaller

SUC’s be absorbed to the structure of the bigger SUC, so that in the

21

process the smaller will learn the processes of the bigger one. This is the

strategy of economic efficiency using the framework of technical and allocative

efficiency. The inefficiency of the smaller one must be paired with the efficient

bigger organization. This could not work according to post merger studies,

because of the administrative and governance complexities in the dimension of

size, cost, and culture. Merger can work without touching the organizational

structure using the framework of strategic alliance such as partnership

ventures, management contract on specific core competence of a particular

SUC, and network building.

Proposed House Bill 5311: An Oxymoron, a Bill that contradicts itself

Does economic efficiency increase access to tertiary education in the

public sector? The main objective of economic efficiency from the hood of

economists and other professionals) is maximizing the level of output given a

minimum level of inputs. This, may be, is the objective of House Bill 5311 but

it may be possible in the quantification of estimates but very difficult to

translate into experiential terms. The tradeoff between efficiency and services

delivery are poles apart. That is why cost efficiency is not always resulting to

better quality of access to services. So while the objective of House bill 5311 is

cost efficiency it makes it difficult to improve access to higher education.

22

Recommendations

Therefore, it is recommended that CHED, and House Bill 5311 sponsor may

consider to change its framework.

1) Capacitate SUC’s to build alliances and other forms of partnerships that

will not compromise organizational structure.

2) Strengthen SUC’s by increasing budget for MOOE.

3) Maintain the current policies that provide incentives to SUC’s that perform

better.

4) Conduct periodic policy researches on SUC governance.

23

End Notes

I Resident Faculty of College of Governance and Business, MPA USEP-School of Government andManagement(1994), Master of Management UP-School of Management(1996), and PhD inDev.Adm. USEP-SGM(2006), published a study, “Governance and Development Outcomes inDavao City”(Development .Management Journal, Dept.of Development StuddiesCollege ofGovernance Business and Economics, 2007), presented the same paper in the InternationalConference on Governance, sponsored by UNDP, UP-NAPCPAG, ADB,WB,, Hyatt Hotel, Manila,2007.

II http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contextual+definition, noun Logic, Philosophy.

iii [in-ti-grey-shuhn] Show IPA http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integration Noun.

iv http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integration.Noun. v

American Heritage Dictionary. (kən-sŏl'ĭ-dā'shən) n.

VI Poggenpoel, M. and Myburgh, CPH. A meta-synthesis of completed qualitative research onlearners’ experience of aggression in secondary schools in south Africa. International Journal ofViolence and School – 8 – June 2009. Dept. of Educational Psychology, University ofJohannesburg, South Africa.

VII Sandelowski, Margarete and Julie Barroso. 2007. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative

Research.11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

VIII IBID, P.200.

IX Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

X Koontz, Kristen. 2009. A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements forthe Master of Science Degree In Applied Psychology, The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout.

XI A discussion paper by Joseph V. Oravitz, retired Pennsylvania School Boards Associationexecutive director (1982‐2001). Oravitz has more than 40 years of public school experience as abusiness teacher, department chair, administrative assistant to the superintendent for businessaffairs, PSBA director of management services and PSBA executive director.

XII Pennsylvania School Boards Association, PA,USA.2009.

XIII Laura Payne Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, © Crown Copyright 2008 Ref:DIUS Research Report 08-19 © Crown Copyright 2008 www.dius.gov.uk/research Published bythe Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

XIV Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. 1120 Lincoln, Suite 1101 Denver, Colorado 80203

May, 2009.

24

xv School Consolidation: A STUDY BY THE OHIO SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION,January, 2011.

xvi Nitta, K., Holley, M., & Wrobel, S. (2010). A phenomenological study of rural schoolconsolidation. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 25(2), 1-19. Retrieved fromhttp://jrre.psu.edu/articles/25-2.pdf

xvii Erin McHenry-Sorber The Pennsylvania State UniversityMcHenry-McHenry-Sorber, E.(2009, Summer). School consolidation in Pennsylvania: An analysis of Governor Rendell'spolicy proposal. The Beacon: A Publication of the Pennsylvania School Study Council, 5(4). Postedon www.psba.org with permission of the author.

xviii Dansky, Steven. 1994. Now Tales of HIV Related Dare Psychoteraphy Everything. 10Alice St. Binghamton, NY 13904-1580: The Haworth Press, Inc.

xix Sierra Mae Paraan. State Universities and Colleges’ Budget Cut: Fact or Fiction? Learning ToRead and Understand. Monday, 07 February 2011.http://www.transparencyreporting.net/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=181:state-universities-and-colleges-budget-cut-fact-or-fiction-learning-to-read-and-understand-budgets&catid=44:stories&Itemid=94