In the end, the two subjects, both addressed in the program, were not unconnected; they both related to the generation and use of financial resources.

An initiative of Philippine Business for Education (PBEd), 1000TP seeks to attract the best and the brightest high school graduates to teach math, science and English in the public schools by providing them with full financial support (tuition, book subsidy and monthly allowance) required to obtain a degree in education. The first class of scholars would cost the Program R100 million, to be sourced from private contributions.

The private sector already raises some R2 billion a year for education, but the funds go to support diverse projects, from books to classrooms, equipment to scholarships. 1000TP aims to make a stronger impact on teacher quality by ensuring that this need receives significant and sustained financial support.

In launching 1000TP, PBEd puts the money where the mouth is, demonstrating that it is prepared to do more than just complain about the crisis in education. This show of good faith gives greater credibility to PBEd on the occasions it is compelled to question government use of resources, which come from taxes that people, including PBEd members, pay.

Philanthropic contributions are paltry compared to the hundred billion DepEd budget and, as it turns out, paltry in the context of corruption. A single ZTE-NBN transaction can generate almost three times the funds raised in a year in corporate donations to education. We learn, from the Lozada Case, how immoderate greed diminishes the resources available for government services.

Controlling corruption would free up more funds for education. But while money is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for the improvement of education. Funds must also be prudently used. The reform agenda for education must include the review and, when necessary, the modification of policies. Sadly, the recent Education Summit showed government insistence on flawed policies, such as that on the creation and conversion of state universities and colleges (SUC).

Let us grant that the SUCs deliver programs of comparable quality to those available in private schools; this is a debatable issue when the SUC is a secondary or vocational/technical school promoted to tertiary-level status by congressional fiat.

The SUCs pose a problem because they compete with the private sector, violating the provision against offering courses that private schools in the area are already teaching. They do this to supplement with student tuition fees the inadequate government funding they receive. The competition is effective because their government subsidies allow them to charge lower than private school rates.

Politicians count on winning votes from the electorate when they sponsor the creation of SUCs; the lower tuition SUCs charge does reduce the cost of higher education for families. Since politicians can never ensure reelection and, in any case, must face term limits, sustaining the quality of the institution is a remote concern.

Policy analysts have argued that spending to subsidize higher education, when basic education still lacks adequate resources, is regressive and inequitable. The approach is particularly perverse when it also threatens the viability of private investments in the education sector. All around the world, governments are encouraging the private sector to share more of the burden of providing tertiary education services.

NEDA and the Presidential Task Force for Education itself have recognized these points. But the President, according to Presidential Assistant Mona Valisno, has stated that the creation of SUCs is a prerogative of Congress. Such is her respect for Congress that she has adopted a policy "not to unduly interfere with the work of the legislative body."

Presumably, former President Estrada also recognized congressional prerogatives relating to SUCs. But following NEDA advice, he used his veto to curb the proliferation of SUCs. Arroyo has declared, in effect, that she will not exercise her persuasive powers to prevent Congress from exercising a prerogative, even when this would prejudice the interests of the higher education sector. Hopefully, the Senate may be more willing to do the right thing.

From a high of 80%, private school enrollment has dropped, to about 65%. There is likely to be further erosion in the private sector share. The congressional pipeline includes bills establishing more SUCs and some of them may slip past the Senate. A bigger threat may come from rich or reckless provinces and cities, which may be tempted to follow those that have set up their own colleges and universities.

Without a presidential policy stand to stem the tide, SUC proliferation will continue to pose a threat to private higher education. We can infer from the statements in the Summit the thrust of the Presidential message: The private schools are on their own.