The Irony of COPC: Balancing Compliance and Institutional Quality in Philippine Higher Education
For years, State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in the Philippines have been the backbone of public higher education, offering degree programs authorized and overseen by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Heads of SUCs often hold the rank of CHED Commissioners, cementing a close relationship between these institutions and the regulatory body. Yet, in recent years, the requirement for a Certificate of Program Compliance (COPC) has emerged as a point of contention. This raises critical questions about its necessity, implementation, and implications.
Historical Oversight of SUCs
SUCs have long been subjected to scrutiny by CHED before being allowed to offer courses. This oversight implies that their programs were initially compliant with national academic standards. So, why is there now a need for an additional layer of compliance through COPCs? The redundancy becomes more apparent when considering that these programs have operated for years, producing graduates who assumed their education met regulatory requirements.
The COPC requirement, introduced under CHED Memorandum Order No. 14, Series of 2019, aims to standardize and ensure the quality of programs in SUCs and Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs). However, this blanket requirement ignores the historical compliance and successful operation of many SUC programs, raising questions about its fairness and necessity.
The Role of AACCUP, PAASCU, and ISO
The irony deepens when considering the roles of accreditation bodies such as the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP) for SUCs and the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities (PAASCU) for private HEIs. Accreditation by these bodies is voluntary and reflects program quality that goes beyond minimum CHED standards. For instance, AACCUP’s Level IV accreditation signifies that a program is like a "center of excellence" because this is the highest level the agency can award. The award looks into everything in the institution.
Adding to this complexity is the growing requirement for ISO certification, which measures organizational quality and management systems. Government SUCs are bombarded with overlapping quality accreditation and certification processes, making their operations more challenging. The irony even exist such as courses are AACCUP Level IV accredited but doesn't have a COPC certification, while others comply with ISO standards but face different evaluation criteria. These multiple frameworks often yield conflicting results, leaving institutions confused and consuming significant time and resources. With limited funding sources, some aspects of the SUC operation takes the sideline.
Are COPC and Accreditations Redundant?
CHED considers both COPC and accreditation important for ensuring quality. However, the existence of multiple layers of quality assessments raises questions about redundancy and efficiency. The time and effort required for these quality visits and compliance activities often strain the limited manpower and scarce resources in SUCs. Redundant submissions for varying requirements reduce productivity and divert attention from core educational functions.
COPCs vs. Private HEIs’ Government Recognition
For private HEIs, the equivalent of a COPC is government recognition, a process they have adhered to for years. Private institutions operate under the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE), which ensures compliance with CHED’s minimum standards. Private HEIs with longstanding government recognition are not required to undergo the COPC process, yet SUCs—government institutions with similar histories of oversight—are burdened with this additional requirement. This discrepancy raises questions about equity and consistency in higher education regulation. COPC requires compliance to everything in its standards even if such is attributed to lack of financial support (e.g. funds for state of the art laboratories and other facilities/resources).
Implications for Students and Institutions
The consequences of requiring COPCs for SUCs are far-reaching:
Impact on Students: Graduates from SUC programs without COPCs are now barred from taking licensure exams. This penalizes students for institutional failures over which they had no control, violating their legitimate expectations of fairness and due process.
Institutional Burden: SUCs face added administrative burdens to secure COPCs for programs that have operated for decades. This diverts resources from enhancing quality to mere compliance.
Redundancy and Inefficiency: The presence of multiple regulatory layers—CHED, COPC, AACCUP, PAASCU, and ISO—creates redundancies. Programs accredited as excellent by AACCUP or PAASCU and compliant with ISO should not require further certification to prove compliance. The overlapping evaluations consume time and resources, leaving institutions overwhelmed and underproductive. Can there be only one standard? the highest of them all?
Recommendations for Reform
To address these issues, several steps can be taken:
Align Accreditation and Compliance: CHED should recognize Level IV accreditation from AACCUP and PAASCU, or ISO compliance, as equivalent to COPC certification. This streamlines processes and acknowledges the rigor of accreditation.
Transitional or Automatic Compliance: SUCs with long-standing programs and proven quality records should be granted automatic or transitional COPC certification to avoid penalizing graduates.
Unified Quality Evaluation: CHED should work toward a single, unified quality evaluation system to free SUC personnel from redundant processes and allow them to focus on institutional improvement rather than compliance.
Focus on New Programs: CHED should prioritize COPC requirements for newly established programs or those flagged for quality concerns, rather than applying it retroactively to established courses.
Improve Coordination: CHED, PRC, and accrediting agencies should coordinate more effectively to avoid overlapping and contradictory requirements.
The requirement for COPCs, while rooted in the noble goal of standardizing quality, has revealed systemic inefficiencies and inequities in higher education regulation. It is ironic that programs recognized as excellent by accrediting bodies or compliant with ISO standards are held back by bureaucratic delays in COPC certification, often implemented using different perspectives from region-to-region. To build a more effective and equitable system, CHED must harmonize its policies with accreditation agencies and ensure that compliance mechanisms serve the best interests of students, institutions, and the broader educational landscape.