THE 1987 Constitution recognizes the complementary roles of public and private schools, but discussion at a recent education conference reminded us all of how elusive that remains. Besides the absence of an implementing law on complementarity, disagreements persist in the policy focus and some key aspects.

First, we assumed there was already consensus on the need to prioritize quality in education. In late 2019, the Department of Education (DepEd) launched Sulong Edukalidad, a program signaling a pivot from access to quality. The private school sector seems to be in lockstep with DepEd; even mentioning “quality education” in the theme of the recent national congress of the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations.

Some lawmakers are still hung up on access, though. While he was supportive of pursuing quality in education, Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian said during that conference it was mere reality to expect politicians to continue pressing the issue of access, particularly for their constituents. Another speaker, Rep. Stella Quimbo of Marikina City chimed in, adding only two schools in her district did not require offering class shifts just to accommodate all the learners there.

Therein lies the frustration of private schools. They have capacity that could decongest public schools, and there are existing programs, such as the voucher system, that would subsidize students from poorer families to attend private institutions, if they so choose.

Also, DepEd continues to build school buildings around the country, as its officials clarified. Pivoting to quality does not mean turning away from meeting the needs of a growing population.

Unintended consequences

Second, not minding the concept of complementary roles could lead to faulty policies, if not unreasonable regulation. This is evident in decisions to increase the salaries of public school teachers that appear virtuous only on the surface. The defect became evident when private school teachers started migrating to public schools because of the higher pay.

Without a similar government support for their teachers, private schools lost talent and experienced difficulty in hiring recent graduates. Worse, there is a general sense among private schools that their economic interests are threatened by over-regulation and unfair competition practiced by the government itself.

For instance, the ability of private schools to adjust tuition is regulated with caps and other requirements. Private schools should be allowed to increase tuition freely not only to afford salary increases for their teachers, but also to enable them to invest in quality and to innovate.

Lawmakers and regulators should not fret over this suggestion. After all, private schools that will raise fees will be checked by competition and other market forces. If schools price themselves too high, for instance, they risk losing enrollment to the public system or other private institutions asking for a lower tuition.

Policymakers could then concentrate on non-use, or on students dropping out because of financial reasons. As mentioned earlier, the remedy already exists in the student subsidy programs. What may be needed is to expand and improve those subsidies by increasing the value of the vouchers. Certainly, ensuring access to education should not be made at the expense of the economic interests of private schools, which are actually risking private capital for public good.

People forget not all private schools are elite institutions with well-funded war chests. More than a majority of private schools are not only modest in size but also less well-capitalized.

In fact, many of them did not survive the Covid-19 pandemic. That, of course, reduces access to some students and harms teachers and other employees who lost their jobs as a result.

Instead of enjoying assistance during this health crisis, private schools are preoccupied with lobbying against a new tax measure that would add to their financial distress. Worse, many in the private school sector feel abandoned by political groups that promised to help them, especially when leftist parties introduce populist measures that undermine the financial viability of their institutions.

It is no wonder some in the traditionally apolitical sector wish to flex their collective muscle in the 2022 elections. Perhaps they should, if that is how the complementary roles can be realized.