A bold idea for education governance

One of the most consequential institutional reforms we have undertaken as a country was the transformation of our central bank.

The creation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) in 1993 was not simply about creating another government agency. It was about building a professional institution with a clear mandate, highly qualified leadership, operational independence, and the ability to attract capable people. Its structure recognizes that monetary policy requires decisions based on expertise and long-term national interest, not the political calendar.

This raises a provocative question: What if we applied some of the same principles to education?

I recognize that education is fundamentally different from monetary policy, and that replicating the BSP model is neither simple nor necessarily appropriate. The idea deserves rigorous study and the views of education, governance, and public policy experts.

But I believe the question is worth putting on the table, especially as the Second Congressional Commission on Education (Edcom 2) pushes us to confront the structural problems in Philippine education.

Our education system faces a fundamental mismatch: politicians operate on six- and three-year election cycles, while education reform requires a long-term strategic view.

A child entering kindergarten today will spend almost 13 years in basic education. If that child proceeds to college, another four years or so follow. That is roughly 17 years, or almost three presidential terms.

Yet major education reforms can be disrupted by changes in national and local political leadership. Meanwhile, the learner continues to move through the system.

Philippine education is trifocalized among Department of Education (DepEd),

Commission on Higher Education (CHEd), and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda), each with important mandates, but often requiring coordination to make the system work as one. Edcom 2 has itself highlighted the need for coherent planning and coordination among these agencies.

What if we created a Philippine education board that could provide that long-term strategic direction?

The concept would be analogous, though not identical, to the BSP’s Monetary Board. Under the BSP charter, the Monetary Board has seven members, with defined qualifications and six-year terms. Five members come from the private sector and serve full-time. The structure is designed to bring expertise and continuity to decisions that affect the country over the long term.

Imagine a five- or seven-member Philippine education board composed of respected education experts and citizens with proven competence in relevant fields. Its members would have clearly defined qualifications, competitive compensation and fixed terms of perhaps seven years, with staggered terms to ensure continuity.

The board could serve as the central governing body for Philippine education, setting long-term strategy, aligning DepEd, CHEd, and Tesda, monitoring outcomes and ensuring that reforms survive changes in administration. It could be headed by a chair subject to rigorous qualification standards, with a fixed seven-year term and compensation commensurate with the responsibility.

This would not mean removing accountability from elected leaders. Nor would it mean taking decisions away from schools and communities. In fact, it could strengthen decentralization by giving local actors greater room to decide what works in their context, while a professional national body provides the standards, direction, and accountability framework.

An additional element could reinforce the commitment: a legally mandated minimum annual education budget equivalent to at least 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The number itself can be debated. Edcom 2’s National Education and Workforce Development Plan is already more ambitious, targeting 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035. The larger point is that education funding should have a predictable floor consistent with the declaration that education is our nation’s top priority.

This is a bold idea. It will raise legitimate questions about constitutional design, accountability, political authority, institutional overlap, and how such a board would interact with existing agencies. Those questions should be answered before anything is implemented.

But perhaps that is precisely why we should have the conversation now.

The BSP experience reminds us that institutional design matters. Sometimes, the most important reform is not another program or policy, but the creation of an institution capable of attracting the best people, making decisions based on expertise and pursuing a mandate consistently over time.

Our children deserve an education system that works on their timetable, not on the election calendar.

If we truly believe that education is our country’s most important investment, perhaps we should build an institution that can protect that investment for generations.

—————-

Ramon del Rosario is the chair of Philippine Business for Education.

—————-

Business Matters is a project of the Makati Business Club (makatibusinessclub@mbc.com.ph).