A partial victory for transparency: 2010 COA Consolidated Audited Annual Report shows partial reforms on U.P. affiliated Foundations

by Chanda Shahani

Almost two years after the Diliman Diary broke the story on conflicts of interest in several University of the Philippines affiliated foundations, the Diliman Diary and its readers are at least now a witness to partial reforms already being undertaken by the University of the Philippines administration working with the Commission on Audit (COA) to address the problems.

The Diliman Diary story, dated June 20, 2010 and entitled Interlocking Directorates between the University of the Philippines and U.P.-based foundations present a compelling case of for intensifying and further scrutinizing financial audits of these foundations, says COA. The Diliman Diary digs further into the details and shows why. extensively detailed how U.P.-affiliated foundations were manned by by high ranking faculty members of several colleges, placing them in what COA called an "undue advantage" in its earlier reports from 2009 and spanning several years.

COA's 2010 Consolidated Audited Annual Report (CAAR) which covers the entire 2010 period, saw former U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman in charge of the University of the Philippines System. U.P. President Alfredo E. Pascual was only sworn into office on January 31, 2011 as the 20th U.P. President by President Benigno S. Aquino III.

The 2010 CAAR of COA also criticized U.P. for a lack of an independent oversight body that would monitor how funds raised by its foundations would be disbursed and accounted for.  COA said this was problematic because there was a lack of transparency in the transactions of these foundations which were utilizing university facilities, personnel and the good name of U.P. itself in raising funds.

COA is calling for a formal Memorandum of Agreement between each U.P.-affiliated foundationand U.P. itself, with COA acting as the independentv oversight body. COA says that it is problematic for foundations to rely on external auditors since there may be bias since it is the foundations who will be paying the external auditors to prepare financial statements.

While external auditors would nominally be expected to point out foundation management oversight or excesses, thee is frequently a possibility of collusion between foundation management and external auditors, because the external auditors do not want to jeopardize their future contracts with these foundations, COA officials told the Diliman Diary.

However, U.P. has already taken active steps to inform the heads of units that no head of units may become a head of a foundation, and that faculty members will no only comprise a minority in these U.P.-affiliated foundations.

The COA report said that the Dean of the U.P. Diliman College of Business Administration (CBA) will no longer head the U.P. Business Research Foundation.

COA said that there are still other foundations that need to show proof of compliance and that this information will continue to remain in the pipeline.

The DIliman Diary will continue to cover this issue whenever there are any significant developments.

Statement by the UP President on the defacement of the UP System website last 20 April 2012

As reported in the media last 20 April, a hacker or hackers defaced the University of the Philippines (UP) System website (http://www.up.edu.ph/) with a politically charged message on the territorial dispute between the Philippines and another country. This hacking incident prompted our University Computer Center (UCC) to temporarily make the site inaccessible. The UP website has been back online since the other day.

After getting relevant information from the UCC which hosts the website, we are issuing this statement to apologize about the down time, strongly criticize the perpetrators, and publicly clarify the situation.

First, we apologize to the affected UP constituents and the public if they felt deprived of UP-related information available on the UP System website for practically the whole day last April 20 (Friday).

Second, we denounce the action of the hacker or hackers for depriving the public of vital information related to UP, especially the schedule of commencement exercises in the nine UP campuses and the April issue of the UP Newsletter which was uploaded only last 17 April.

Third, we clarify that no private data were stolen by the hacker or hackers and that the UP constituents' data contained in the computerized registration system, WebMail and others were not compromised.

According to the report by the UCC, the hacker or hackers exploited a vulnerability of, and added unwarranted content to, the website at around 2:20 a.m. on 20 April. The UCC technical team became aware of the situation at around 4:50 a.m. and responded immediately by closing all access to the web server.

The UCC has already made adjustments to the restored site to prevent a similar incident from happening again, details of which we opt not to divulge for security reasons.

While the UCC has been able to trace the IP address of the hacker or hackers to a specific country, we seek the public's understanding if we do not identify the country of origin for two reasons. First, the IP address can be masked to appear as if someone is working from a specific location. Second, even assuming that the IP address was not masked, it is still possible that someone compromised a machine from that specific location to deface the UP System website.

Yesterday, news reports circulated that hackers, claiming to come from the Philippines defaced the websites of several institutions in China. Their actions, they claimed, was in retaliation to the hacking of the UP website.

We appeal to the public to avoid jumping to conclusions and taking actions that could further inflame people's sentiments, particularly on the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China. Hacking selected websites at the suspected country of the hacker or hackers does not objectively articulate any political issue and only subjectively fulfills a personal desire to "get even". Giving the perceived "enemies" a dose of their own medicine by hacking their alleged country's websites achieves nothing but unproductive counter-actions.

As we call on the media to avoid sensationalizing the defacement of the UP System website, we also call on the concerned technology-savvy Filipinos to stop hacking other websites, particularly those from China. Filipinos are more sensible than this, and our expertise is better used in productive endeavors.

President Noy: From Zero Coke to Zero love life to Zero Capital Outlay for State Universities and Colleges and Hospitals

(Source: U.P. Kilos Na)

Feeling thirsty? Dehydrated? Need a drink? Sure, go ahead and have your pot-belly busting Coke Zero but while you are doing that, please spare a thought for State Universities and Hospitals who have been given zero capital outlay by the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III making it difficult for them to carry out their missions effectively.

It would be different if we were a Somalia or some other bankrupt failed state. But we are in the Philippines and have been at least nominally democratic and self-governing since 1946, and we can certainly do much better with our existing resource base. After all, if the Department of Budget and Management Secretary Florencio "Butch" Abad can allocate P800 million for his home province for capital expenditures in 2012 for the national budget when Batanes only has a population of 15,000; and allocates zero capital expenditures for capital expenditures for 2012 for the province of Davao del Norte which has a population of more than 700,000 then you know that something is seriously wrong. It becomes even worse when the proposed budget of the University of the Philippines System is slashed by 64% from P15 billion to P5.1 billion which is P800 million less than it got in 2011.

The problem boils down not to a lack of resources but to a misallocation of resources by the administration of President Benigno S. Aquino III and its distorted priorities.

(Readers may like or follow us in Facebook and Twitter! Simply type in "Diliman Diary" in the search functions of these social media sites)

Department of Budget and Management proposes to Congress that the U.P. System will have a zero capital outlay for the 2nd straight year in 2012

Analysis

By Chanda Shahani

This comment has been published today in the Facebook page of the University of the Philipines System:

"Citing statistics on page 5 of this PDF file, the University of the Philippines (UP) has a budget allocation of P5.5 billion (i.e., P4.8 billion for personal services, P0.7 billion for maintenance and other operating expenses and zero budget for capital outlays)."

The Department of Budget and Management's budget allocation for U.P. in 2012 can be accessed here. 

It is perhaps out of a sense of courtesy (i.e., from one sector of government to another) that the U.P. System website's neutral tone belies the terrific body blow dealt to the U.P. System by the Department of Budget and Management. For no organization, ranging from a very large state university down to a neighborhood day care center can exist without an allocation for capital outlays.

The Facebook page of the University Student Council of U.P. Diliman also said today that: "The UP budget proposed for next year is 17B but the DBM only approved 5.54B. That's a 3.6% decrease from the GAA, 20.6% decrease for the Maintenance and other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) and ZERO Capital outlay yet again."

An earlier analysis made several weeks ago by the Diliman Diary shows how much the U.P. System has already had to endure (percentage-wise), in terms of budget cuts since 2006.

Analysis of 2006-2011 U.P. Budget with implications for the 2012 budget.

The DBM argued in 2010 that there were so many projects (new buildings such as the National Science Complex, etc.) in the pipeline that U.P. did not need any more capital outlay for 2011. 

This reasoning is erroneous, because the definition of the financial term “capital outlay” transcends just building new buildings. In a complex organization such as the U.P. System, capital outlays are always needed not only from year-to-year to acquire assets or improve the useful life of existing assets, but to fund long-term projects that are expensed as they are completed stage-by-stage. 

Using 2006 and 2007 as representative years in order to ferret out the ratio of capital outlay (CO) to overall budget, we can see that the average CO is 11%. We did not anymore include 2008, 2009 and 2010 because those were extraordinary years in terms of obtaining funds from the National Government which were heavily influenced by the U.P. Centennial years and these would tend to artificially inflate the ratio of CO to the overall budget.

The point is that historically (at least based on these partial figures, U.P.'s budget for CO should be at around 11% of the overall budget). Of course, having a longer time series (say 20 years) would be preferable, as we could then get more representative data, but 11% capital outlay a year does not seem unreasonable for any institution whose assets are continually, depreciating, falling apart and in need of replacement or upgrading.

Some legitimate capital outlay expenditures for a university and research institution would include building new buildings, acquiring major new equipment (e.g.: research equipment) or even acquiring land or even putting up a new extension of an existing college (eg: U.P. College of Business Administration and U.P. College of Law in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City). 

It is imperative for the Aquino Administration and Congress to recognize Capital Outlay as a necessary and legitimate expense for any public or private entity, and to restore an amount for the 2012 budget.

We have put in Annex A aggregate figures from 2006 to 2011. Using a Time Series or Horizontal Analysis of U.P.'s budget from the national government in order to get an appreciation of the respective increase or decrease (in percentage terms in year-to-year growth), we can see that U.P.'s budget shrank by 7% in 2007 compared to 2006, but from 2008 to 2009, it grew by 25%, which are due to lobbying efforts by the U.P. Administration to DBM and Congress to increase its budget because of positive publicity for U.P. generated by the U.P. centennial (please see Annex A). However, U.P.'s budget decreased from 2010 to 2011 by 18%, due to a non-insertion of even a single peso for capital outlay by the Department of Budget and Management for 2011. 

The removed figure for capital outlay (equivalent to 18% of U.P.'s budget in 2010) in 2011 is PhP 1.28 billion

Some thoughts on Core Inflation and its impact on the U.P. Budget.

The next question is, if CO should not be 0% (as it was in 2011), but 11% in 2012, as per historical precedents, then CO should be 11% of what? We cannot resort to zero-based budgeting computations, as we do not have the institutional advantage that DBM and the U.P. Budget Office has (i.e., access to all the data on the budget down to the last office expenditure) as they can throw out all previous assumptions and start from scratch (minus the politics of budgeting, this is strictly speaking, a valid approach). 

What we can do, however, is to treat 2006 as a base year and see the impact of core inflation on the U.P. budget.

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB) argues that core inflation (which is a lower figure) rather than headline inflation (which is a higher figure because it includes more price volatile commodities in its index) is the more meaningful figure to use in gauging the impact on inflationary effects on policy making. We are adopting this point of view in terms of making adjustments to a yearly budget such as U.P.'s (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2003/6.asp), and this has the benefit of also being the more conservative figure than headline inflation, as we prefer to err on the side of conservatism when it comes to financial computations.

Using 2006 as a base year of comparison and utilizing data from NCSB for core inflation (please see Annex B which is sourced from: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_price.asp), we can see that average core inflation was 4.46 a year, which means that using 2006 as a base year, one budget peso in 2006 is now worth 22.3% less in 2010 , 27% less in 2011 and 31% less in 2012. 

Assuming for the sake of discussion that there were no new programs implemented, additional personnel hired, or new buildings built in U.P. post-2006, U.P.'s budget should have at the very minimum, increased by 31% of its total PhP 5,456,428,000 in 2006 to a larger amount in 2011 just to keep abreast with core inflation. 

Thus U.P.'s budget should be at the very minimum have been PhP 6,929,663,000 in 2011 (to counter the 27% deterioration in the value of the peso from 2006 as the base year) in and 7,147,921,000 in 2012 (to counter the 31% deterioration in the value of the peso from 2006 as the base year) in real terms compared to its budget of PhP 5,949,619,000 in 2011 which is really too low. 

Thus for the Aquino Administration to say that there was no budget cut because there was simply no provision for CO in 2011 (as the claim was that all the new buildings in the pipeline negated the necessity for having any sort of capital expenditure in 2011), is false and misleading because it ignores the effects of core inflation. 

Additionally, MOOE was even cut from PhP 1,358,322,000 (2010) to PhP 653,999,000 (2011) or by 52%. Also, U.P.'s capital outlay for 2012 should be an estimated 11% of the minimum PhP 7,147,921,000 in 2012 or PhP 786 million,which is even fairly near the capital outlay of PhP 727,560,000 in 2006, so there is already a historical precedent for this.

A minimum budget increase to PhP 7,147,921,000 to keep abreast of inflation does not even take into account increases in Personal Services and MOOE which will come about in 2012 as a result of the new building activities, as these buildings need to be operated, maintained and run properly. However, we will not comment further on this, because we do not have the data to project in any analysis.

Should the U.P. System Cut the Umbilical Cord of 100% Government Subsidy?

Of course, the other side of the problem is that the National Government can always say that U.P. has to work within the budget it was given, and all they can afford is so much, and that since U.P. is a land grant university, then it has to raise the difference from its assets. The problem with this approach, while partially valid, is that it ignores the following:

a)      U.P. has several indispensable schools of learning which are continuously and directly tapped by the national government and the people for national development. To be hard-nosed about it, the tax payers and the government have to pay for what they get. There are no free lunches anywhere. RA 9500 states that U.P. is the only national university bar none, and so the funding also has to be there or the national government itself is in violation of the law. U.P. is not a comparable State University and College anymore, which are now the subject of massive cost-cutting measures by CHED.

b)      Tuition fees only accounted for 5% of U.P.’s total revenue in 2011 and this reality, combined with student and U.P. administration opposition to a tuition fee increase only shows that U.P. will have to look elsewhere (aside from national government allocations) to fill in a possible funding gap.

c)      Assuming for the sake of discussion, that the national government will not be able to completely comply with the law by funding U.P. as the national university, there are several steps that may be taken as part of an overall strategy. For example, U.P. can do more to raise internal funds, and in fact a common size income statement (for internally generated income) from 2006 (Please see Annex C) shows in percentage terms how the gaps may be filled in by internally generated income. Taking into consideration the fact that national government expenditures, as a percentage of U.P.’s total revenue has already begun to decline from 81% in 2006 to 73% in 2011, then other growth areas (in terms of funds generation) would be in U.P.’s income from revolving fund. The increase in income here should be aggressively augmented by money market placements in conservative investments (e.g.: Treasury bills and bonds). It should also be the subject of aggressive audit by the Commission on Audit, which has a long history of complaints about how U.P. handles its cash once it is on hand. There should be complete vouchers, and complete documentation for every deposit and withdrawal into these funds.

d)     Another red flag is grants and donations which according to Annex C, has jumped from almost 0% in earlier years to 7% in 2011, but this could easily be doubled to 14% by an aggressive fund raising campaign by the Pascual administration which may actually already be happening, considering that the year is not over yet. However, grants and donations - an issue which was relevant under the Roman administration - still remains relevant under the Pascual administration (see the part about U.P. in: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/11/breaking-news-coa-releases-2009-audit_05.html) because we do not know what is happening to the the funds of these foundations which are not subject to COA monitoring. This cookie jar must be closely monitored, now that the U.P. budget is in dire straits and every peso that is earned must go to its rightful place. Additionally, faculty affiliated foundations (for the list of these foundations submitted by U.P. in 2010 to COA, please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/41260783/Partial-List-U-P-Affiliated-Foundations-From-COA-2009-CAAR-Up-System) must also subject themselves to COA scrutiny under the principle that the chief beneficiaries (the faculty) must get what is due to them, but there should be transparency and accountability and in this, COA’s role is superior to that of any external auditor, no matter how good they are (even SGV). This is because external auditors tend to be biased in favor of their clients who pay them for an external audit, in compliance with SEC rules, while COA tends to play a more neutral role since they are not beneficiaries of these foundations (non-COA external auditors, who are paid by their clients would logically be reluctant to issue reports that would put their clients in a bad light). Even if there are restrictions on monies earned by U.P. from donations and foundations, these should still be subject to scrutiny to ensure that fellowships or stipends (eg for faculty research, travel grants, research projects or travel abroad) are properly disbursed and released in an equitable manner.

e)      Since U.P. is a land grant university, it is likely that more of its properties and even other non-current assets (eg: patents and other intellectual properties) will be maximized. However, RA 9500 requires projects exceeding PhP 50 million to be subject to public consultation, so it would be a good idea for the sectors be ready with a standing committee that can scrutinize such revenue generating projects to ensure that they are beneficial to the university, utilizing proper financial criteria, as well as other criteria (eg: is the project consistent with the mission of the university and its values).

f)       On a final note, it would not be a bad idea for U.P. to consider issuing long term University of the Philippines bonds for some  of its long-term capital expenditures and other expenditures (payable in say, 25 years). U.P.’s excellent reputation would allow this to be favorably received in the capital markets, but the reception would be better if there were no outstanding issues of a financial nature (eg: adverse COA reports) that would scare off the underwriters. An excellent ready market for this would be U.P. alumni here and abroad (thus, the bonds can be peso denominated and dollar denominated bonds).

DBM defines what is allowable capital outlay in a 2010 memo to SUCs and then slashes it to zero in 2011 and 2012

The fact that the administration of U.P. President Alfredo Pascual asked DBM for P17 billion in funds for 2012 (which would reflect the U.P.'s much better appreciation of actual costs compared to ours) but only got a proposed allocation of 32% of that or P5.5 billion shows how seriously flawed and skewed is the reasoning of DBM; especially if we take into account that there needs to be a capital outlay to replace aging machines, depreciating equipment and for other expenses.

President Aquino's State of the Nation Address (SONA) and  its annex to the SONA address, which is the detailed technical report attached to the SONA is revealing in terms of what the Aquino government considers important enough to merit funding (DSWD and conditional cash transfers) and what is of lesser importance (SUCs such as U.P. are hardly mentioned at all). But the annex does state that "As early as 30 December 2010, the DBM had already issued National Budget Memorandum (NBM) No. 107, s. 2010 providing all heads of departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, commissions, state universities and colleges, and other instrumentalities of the national government the overall policy framework and thrusts for the FY 2012 Budget. The NBM also set specific guidelines for the budget preparations."

NBM No. 107, s. 2010 in fact was signed by no less than DBM Secretary Florencio B. Abad and details and defines in Part III DBM's definition of capital outlays which include investments, repair and rehabilitation of occupied buildings, land improvements, the acquisition of office equipment, furniture and fixtures, transportation equipment, public infrastructure, reforestation of lands, loan outlays, livestock and work animal acquistions.

Based on the above DBM definition, which includes many necessary materials and equipments with which to run a complex organization such as the U.P. System coupled with DBM's non-insertion of capital outlay as an item in the proposed 2012 budget, it seems likely that U.P. will have a difficult time operating at full capacity unless this anomaly is corrected by Congress itself.

(Chanda Shahani is the editor of the Diliman Diary. An A.B. Comparative Literature graduate from U.P. Diliman, he also has a Master's degree in Entrepreneurship from the Asian Institute of Management and is a former business page reporter for the Philippine STAR).

For daily updates, please check our Facebook page (just type in Diliman Diary in Facebook's search). 

U.P. Diliman College of Mass Communication Professor Announces Appointment as Incoming U.P. System Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs

"And since we’re on the subject of disclosure, it is incumbent upon you, my dear reader, to know some developments as regards my full-time work at the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman where I mainly work as assistant professor of journalism."

"As the UP community welcomes a new President this week, I am directly affected as I will leave my office at Plaridel Hall (i.e., College of Mass Communication) to occupy a new one at Quezon Hall (i.e., the administration building)."

"Effective February 10 (Thursday), I will start working as Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs (AVPAA). As I write this, I am also in the process of taking over the directorship of UP’s System Information Office (SIO)."

Read the rest here: U.P. Diliman College of Mass Communication Professor Announces Appointment as Incoming U.P. System Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs

Diliman Diary readers respond to "A letter from a UPCM alumnus to incoming U.P. President Pascual on less Antiquated Teaching Methods

Editor's note: Two Diliman Diary Readers have already responded to the email sent to us on January 16 by Dr. Leonardo Leonidas, a member of the U.P. Medical Society in America (UPMASA) regarding antiquated teaching methods at the University of the Philippines (please see: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2011/01/editors-note-following-was-emailed-to.html) but for the original consumption of incoming U.P. President Alfredo E. Pascual. The original email seems to have acquired a life of its own, however due to reader interest in the subject. We are including both emails below. The first is from Dr. Gabriel G. Carreon and the second is from Mr. Romeo Santos, who sent us a comment to our Facebook page at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Diliman-Diary/107709502591529

The first email:

Dear Dr. Leonidas,

I was pleased to read your article of 17 January 2011 in the Diliman Diary on improving teaching methods. Congratulations! The essence of learning are curiosity and initiative, among others. I would like to complement your experience with some observations and comments.

[1] There appears to be a revival on the fundamentals of a good physical examination – inspection, palpation, percussion and auscultation. There should be equal re-focus on good history-taking.

[2] Some U.S. medical schools are introducing the patient to the student as early as the first year; as well, the student is being introduced to the community early in the medical course. This should help in the early development of a social conscience in addition to a scientific mind.

[3] There is a pressing need for the early introduction of the student to the realities of the health care system where he will apply his medical knowledge, participate in organization, teamwork and networking and learn to prioritize decisions and actions.

[4] There is a need to learn to translate thoughts and words into action and to look for reasonable outcomes from available inputs and resources.

We hope these will be helpful to the UPCM.


Gabriel G. Carreon
UPCM 1953.

The second email:

You hit it bulls-eye, Prof. Leonidas! I appreciate your insights.

Yes, there must be a 'radical' change in the way instructions are done in UP- actually, it should be in the whole country. I agree with your 'evidence-based education', it's actually our 'results-based' advocacy, in which performance and success are measured not only by outputs, but more on outcomes.

I think it's an issue of pedagogy -why the professor you mentioned teaches the way he does. Most professors still stick to the pedagogic approach of 'transmission' and not 'transformation'. Transmission makes one professor think that students are just receiving vessels, that teachers are ‘know-all’ lords in the classroom, and what students shall do is to absorb, absorb, and absorb from the ‘most-knowing’ being. What makes it worse is that what students absorb is usually knowledge that the profs have accumulated through books (grey literature, mostly) and the lessons, styles, and mindsets, among many, were the same worn-out stuffs handed down to them by their own mentors. Transmission treats students as fraternity applicants that are under-going initiation, -that because profs have experienced ‘difficult life’ under their ‘masters’, it’s now their turn to get even.

On the other hand, transformation recognizes that students are partners in learning, that education is not a one-way process –both sides should learn from the teaching endeavor, and profs and students have equal stake in the learning initiative. Actually, the basic reason for education is to make one a well-rounded individual - one who is ‘changed’ for the better, not just for the betterment of himself, but the society. That is the very ‘LOGIC [THEORY] OF CHANGE’ central in any educational program. Otherwise, if the products of learning are individuals that have one-track mind and a narrow sense of learning (solidly focused on the technical, field or discipline-fixed application of the knowledge learnt), that he will use for self gratification and not for the common good, then the society will suffer disastrously. Learning outcomes (as measurable results) are evident in students who undergo education if they imbibe the values on which this education is basically premised. That is what we call evidence-based learning. If the purpose of the education is to produce individuals who are more concerned with becoming cum laude, board topnotcher, ‘crema del crème’ and to just graduate to advance own selves, then education is mere output-based.

It is no wonder why we always lament the fact that while, we, Filipinos are known to be intelligent people, we, as a society, do not progress much. My theory is that our education is basically flawed. It is very output-oriented and not what you said as ‘evidence-based’ or ‘results based’. We are turning out graduates who are mostly ‘parroting’ what their teachers did (and what these teachers had become), more often, self-centered and narrowly focused on the technical skills and knowledge of their disciplines, while evidence of values imbibed for the common well-being and upliftment of the collective whole are absent.

Have we ever asked ourselves?-WHY is corruption so selfish? ...When do we ever learn? - EDUCATION is not rote, it should be built around values that advance common good, and these values should be evident outcomes seen in the students we produce.



Romeo Santos

A letter from a UPCM alumnus to incoming U.P. President Pascual on less Antiquated Teaching Methods

Editor's note: The following email was sent to us on January 16 by Dr. Leonardo Leonidas, a member of the U.P. Medical Society in America (UPMASA) with the request that we upload this for the possible consideration of the incoming U.P. President Alfredo E. Pascual. We are also posting this on the Facebook page entitled, Messages to new U.P. President Alfredo E. Pascual at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Messages-to-New-UP-President-Alfredo-E-Pascual/172909116063538 
Dr. Leonidas may be reached for comment at: nonieleonidas68@gmail.com

To the New UP President Mr. Alfredo E. Pascual,

Changing Old Teaching Method

One day last February at one in the afternoon, I attended a lecture at UPCM, BSLR room, 42 years after my graduation. The topic was muscle diseases. The professor I think was in the mid 40s. 

Except for the use of Power Point, the format of the talk was similar to my experience when I was student. It was a “show-and-tell” one-way talk with the professor doing all the action. 

The lecture was just as boring and sleep inducing like we had years ago. I was sitting in the front first row. I looked back to my right and noticed that some of the students are bored and sleepy. During our time, I remembered I also felt sleepy in many of the lectures at the same lecture room. 

After about half an hour of the talk, I left the room because I did not see any new teaching method from the professor that I can adopt.

I am Leonardo Leonidas, UPCM class 68 graduate, Assistant Clinical Professor in Pediatrics (till 2008), Tufts University School of Medicine. Boston. For about 30 years I mentored third year medical students. My role was to teach and demonstrate to how to diagnose, do physical examination, and treat patients.

I think the problem of our University is we have antiquated method of teaching which was designed during the industrial age. Our teaching methods are  experienced base, rather than “Evidence Based Education” like the new wave in medical education’s “Evidenced Based Medicine.”

I think the teaching model of most Professors is “One-Size-Fit-All” one-way lectures. They have different mind-set that strongly believe they should teach the Net Generation Student Learners the same way they learned.  

However, the Net Gen Student Learners grew up in a digital world of the 21st Century with a different mind-set who gets sleepy easily with a boring one-way lecture even though they are using Power Point.

Our student of the 21st century prefers to discover for themselves the solutions to a problem. They are more comfortable searching for the answer rather than Professor lecturing to them subjects that they are not interested with at that particular time.

The Net Gen Students are better in collaborating with other students or teachers. They learn better creating their own learning environment using technology and less of the paper-based note-taking, reading heavy hard copy books.

However, if our University is not offering tools and opportunities for collaboration, just-in-time learning, rapid on-line 24/7 libraries, these students will be bored and stressed on graduation. I think these are the student when they become professionals might be prone to early burn-out, reduced productivity, depression, and probably prone to corruption at the workplace.

How can we help the 21st century Learners?

We should change our methods of teaching. We should make it Student-Centric and Fun. And these are the features of newer teaching method:

    Instead of Professors lecturing, they should interact with students and help them discover for themselves.

    Instead of delivering a “One-Size-Fits-All” form of lecture, Professors should customize learning module to fit the student’s way of learning and studying.

    Instead of isolating the students to work alone, the Professor should encourage them to collaborate with other students, teachers, business managers, and researchers.

    Instead of teaching them what to learn, Professors should teach them how to think for themselves and do extensive research to solve a particular problem at hand.

    Instead of loading their power point slides with words, they should put more cartoons, pictures, and videos to illustrate the main idea. The brain learn and remember more visually.

   Instead of being serious in their demeanor, Professors should smile more, make frequent eye-contact with some students, give one-liner jokes, or show magic to make the amygdala pay attention. 

   Instead of forgetting the names of their students,

teachers should request their student’s e mail, so communication and teaching will be easier and fun. With a group e mail, teachers can follow up their students and make outcome studies of their methods. Updates of their lecture can be distributed with a click of the mouse. Armed with e mails, teachers can easily hook up a student with researchers and future contacts for employment.

    

I suggest that the first step for UP to help to the Net Gen Learner is to make all of the lectures available in a Website, a Blog from each Professor, group e mail, Facebook, or an Apple App. Professor should have a recorded audio or video of their lectures available 24/7 wireless.

I think one of the best tool that helped my students is the e mail. With this tool, I created cases of typical patients for them to solve within a few days. I requested students to analyze the case then send me their diagnosis. The response and comments were positive. And my Tufts medical students enjoyed it. 

From that experience, about five years before I retired, I invited some third year students from UP College of medicine for an e mail discussion on selected pediatric patients. About 20 of them was in my e mail group. One of them e mailed me saying that he learned more from our long-distance discussion than his six-weeks of rotation at the Pediatric Department of PGH. This student later on was accepted at Johns Hopkins Training program and now a Fellow at Mayo Clinic.

I also created a website that my students can visit to look for differential diagnosis in diseases of children. Instead of my students going to a textbook to look for the many causes of headache, fever, abdominal pain, etc., they just visit my website and with a few click of the mouse, they have at least 20 causes of whatever chief complaint of a patient they are dealing with.

Students will not be required to attend lectures, but will be required to learn in small groups and collaborate with other students or researchers. Instead of taking multiple-choice examinations for their “grades”, students should have a portfolio of their work that can help the community.

Since paper based text-books are often at least three to five years late, there will less hard-copy books but more e-books for technical, biological, health, and sciences. 

However, we should design an outcome-based learning environment. Before one student can go to the next level, he or she should demonstrate that the teaching module is well ingrained in their brain and attitude. That they can remember and apply the principles in their daily life or environment.

The goal of a Student-Centric education is founded on Evidence Based Medicine "Just-in-Time" to be used to solve the current problem.

Lastly, I think all student should have a mandatory course on how the brain works, remember, and decide based on the pre-frontal cortex, not on the amygdala, the emotional center. They should also know the latest research on how to motivate ourselves and others based on the research of Harry Harlow and Edward Deci.

This 21st Century Education is now possible and the University of the Philippines should be the first Institution to morph into it.

The University of the Philippine has already selected its next President. I suggest the next one use Evidence Based Teaching methods and create a master’s degree program about how the brain works as applied to teaching.

Leonardo Leonidas, MD

Parent’s Diagnostic Aid (Apple App Store)

Assistant Clinical Professor in Pediatrics

Tufts University (Retired)

Outstanding Alumnus, UPMASA, 2010

Teacher of the Year, UPMASA, 2006

Distinguished Career In Teaching Award from Tufts University's Class 2009 Award Ceremony on May 13, 2009 at Parker House Hotel, Boston.
Email: nonieleonidas68@gmail.com