Outcomes Based Education and the Guarantee of Academic Freedom

Outcomes Based Education and the Guarantee of Academic Freedom

By: Dr. Charlemagne G. Lavina, Dean – College of IT Education

 

Academic Freedom

           

When I was still the Dean of Pamantasan ng Cabuyao in 2004, a mother of one transferee student politely asked me, “Sir, naka two years na po ang anak ko sa Perpetual Binan at mag te third year na.  Pag lipat po ba nya dito eh 3^rd year na rin siya?” I also answered her politely, “Malamang po eh, 2^nd year lang depende po a curriculum ng Perps”.  After the mother left my office, my student assistant (SA) who is listening to our conversation also inquire, “Sir bakit din na lang gawin ang curriculum na pare-pareho parang sa high school para paglipat ok lang…” I replied, “Sa ngayon, di ko pa alam ang dahilan.”

            In 2011, during one of the public hearings of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) re: formulating a template regarding thesis for Computer Science, most ITE instructors/professors as well as Deans had showed and suggested different manners on how to write thesis in ITE. The forum has turned to be a show of intelligence among the deans and instructors from different  colleges and universities until one of the participants suggests, “Ba’t di na lang kayo sirs (referring to Dr. Jimmy Caro and Dr. Sioson) ang gumawa ng template para pare-pareho.” Dr. Caro did NOT accept the suggestion but did NOT give the reasons why. This time, I know the answer.

Art. XIV, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.”

Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guaranties all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public interest calls for some restraint (Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 431, 455-456 (2000), citing Tangonan v. Paño, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 245, 256-257). According to present jurisprudence, academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall teach, and (4) who may be admitted to study (Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, G.R. No. 156109, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 56. The "four essential freedoms of a university" were formulated by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court in his concurring opinion in the leading case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 US 234, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1311, 77 S. Ct. 1203 emphasis supplied.)

            This is the reason why colleges and universities cannot be compelled by CHED to adopt a common curriculum because the 2nd essential freedom which is within the ambit of the academic freedom gives institutions of higher learning to determine “what may be taught”.  

If CHED requires the implementation of OBE, will there be a violation of the guarantee of Academic Freedom?

            OBE means clearly focusing and organizing EVERYTHING in an educational system on what is essential for all students to be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences (Spady, 1994).

            Even if you asked a seasoned lawyer or an expert in Constitutional Law, this question cannot be answered right away.  Any person who will attempt to defend or attack the constitutionality of the “mandatory implementation of OBE” will have to be familiar with the intricacies of OBE, such as formulation of Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and Student Outcomes and doing an Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning (OBTL).

            Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. PEOs must be aligned with the institution’s mission statement (ABET Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs 2013-2014 cycle). Now let’s think for a while, did CHED imposed a particular PEO and/or mission statement for educational institutions? The answer is in the negative. It only means that CHED is affording the schools to decide for itself, its own mission statement from which the PEOs are aligned which is CONSISTENT with the principles of academic freedom. Unfortunately, the critics of OBE merely asserts that CHED CMO 46 s. 2012 (a CHED Memorandum Order which requires the implementation of OBE) without providing basis and explanation of how the said CMO violates the principles of Academic Freedom.

            One may asked, may be the identification of SOs violates academic freedom?

Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program (ABET supra). Assuming that having SOs for a particular degree program violates the principle of academic freedom, then it follows that almost all CMOs will be unconstitutional! Why? This is because SOs is not new. We called this Program Objectives which enumerate the competencies which the student may attain upon finishing a particular degree program.   Thus, CMO 60 s. 1996, the first policies and standards for Information Technology had already included in Section 1 – Mission Statement and Objectives the student outcomes of ITE Programs.

How about Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning (OBTL)? OBTL is a constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes  with appropriate outcomes based assessment method (or assessment tasks ATs) and teaching and learning activities (TLAs). This is OBE applied in the classroom level

            Simply stated, in OBTL, the teaching and learning activities are anchored towards the attainment of course outcomes. For example, if you want to teach your child “to tie his shoes”, this is your course outcomes. So if the teacher wants to assess, all that OBTL requires is you measure directly how the student can tie his shoes. In the end, it is up to the school or professor how to formulate his intended learning outcomes and the TLAs, all these in consonance with the principles of Academic Freedom.

            While it is true that the said CMO is NOT perfect like all other laws, it is NOT a basis to say that such is unconstitutional and free ourselves from complying thereto. There is NO debate, there is NO argument about it that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” . All of us are supporting academic freedom and if, at all, CHED will formulate a CMO which is against the Constitution, I am the first one who will oppose it.  At any rate, CMO 46 enjoys the presumption of  constitutionality and he who invoke unconstitutionality has the burden of proof to adduce evidence to prove it. Mere assertions will NOT suffice.