Since assuming office as Faculty Regent in January, I have found our university community immersed in critical conversations on curricular reform and faculty welfare. At face value, these may seem like two separate institutional concerns 鈥� one pedagogical, the other linked to career progression. But both, along with other issues that have not gained the same traction, are connected by a broader ideological thread, a troubling shift toward a more market-driven vision of higher education.
The UP Core Curriculum (UPCC), which, in hindsight, was a precursor to the Commission on Higher Education鈥檚 plan to reduce General Education (GE) units, was first proposed to the Board of Regents (BOR) in February of this year. In the proposal, the UPCC stands to reduce GE courses to a maximum of 30 units (down from what was more than 60 in the past, and later, just 40+). In that same meeting, the guidelines for the 2025 Faculty Merit Promotion (FMP) were approved by the BOR.听
A month later, we were presented with the infamous Version 10 of the FMP guidelines, which had much stricter requirements: a 3-year residency/post-promotion rule; minimum requirements per rank in all four categories of teaching; research/creative work; public service; and professional development. It also had much stricter publication requirements for cross-ranking.
In talking about these issues, I return to the framework that grounds my work as Faculty Regent: Kaayohan, which is a Visayan word that speaks not only of wellness, but of collective well-being, justice, and the conditions necessary for a life of dignity.听
Shrinking GE: What do we truly lose when we cut back?
When the K to 12 program was implemented in 2013, many undergraduate programs from UP and other state universities and colleges (SUCs) revised their curricular offerings to reduce the number of GE courses. This was also the period when thousands of teachers in college lost their jobs following the removal of Filipino and Panitikan as required courses, on the basis that these were supposedly covered in basic education.听
Incidentally, just a few days after word of the UPCC came out, I received a message pointing out that this reduction of core courses was also happening in the Senior High School (SHS). Today, the Strengthened SHS program is being piloted in more than 800 schools nationwide. Under this revised curriculum, what used to be 15 core courses was downsized to five. Filipino has disappeared, not just as a core subject but also as a medium of instruction. Last year also saw the termination of the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program.
Meanwhile, the UPCC touts the reduction of time spent in college to 3.5 years.听
When one zooms out to take a look at these changes, it becomes glaring how they reflect a trend that prioritizes 鈥渆fficiency鈥� and 鈥渨orkforce readiness,鈥� at the expense of critical, holistic, and socially grounded education. In the desire to shorten time to graduation and align with so-called international standards, GE courses are being labeled as redundant and non-essential.听
But GE should not be looked at as a delay to specialization. If anything, they are the very courses that allow us to develop individuals who can interrogate systems, build communities, and imagine better futures especially for the most vulnerable. Therefore, our GE courses must be further enriched rather than discarded.
The Politics of Productivity and #PromosyonParaSaLahat
The recently approved FMP Guidelines have triggered deep concern among faculty. Over time, these policies have veered toward an academic culture that privileges quantifiable outputs over contextual realities and collective support.
Several provisions create barriers particularly for faculty in precarious appointments and in basic education units, where teaching loads are heavy and support is minimal.
My office has received a deluge of messages lamenting the lack of prior consultation for the new guidelines. Junior faculty members who were disqualified because of the 3-year minimum residency rule have called the policy demoralizing, demeaning, and disconnected from the realities of early-career academics. Others have told me how the guidelines fail to acknowledge the diverse contexts of academic work, as in the case of those teaching in basic education, who often juggle homeroom advising, extensive teaching loads, and administrative duties.听
To add insult to injury, the effectivity date of the 2025 merit promotions was set to July 1, six months after the reckoning period. This is immensely different from previous FMPs, in which effectivity dates have always been set on the day immediately after reckoning period. Effectively, faculty will be deprived of six months鈥� worth of back pay.
If we are serious about promoting academic excellence, our expectations of faculty members must not be reduced to a checklist. We must invest in kaayohan, in the form of enabling environments, mentoring systems, and evaluative frameworks that are grounded in solidarity, and not just on what qualify as global standards.听
Beyond the individual sense of wellness, kaayohan calls for the creation of systems and cultures that support the flourishing of all members of the University community: students, REPS, administrative staff, and faculty alike.
As we debate policies on curriculum and promotion, we must also ask: What are we doing for our REPS and administrative staff whose promotion tracks are stagnant? What are our plans for our contractual workers who do not even have a path to regularization? How do we include them in our vision for academic excellence?聽
I hope that these questions and insights open up spaces for reflection, context, and critical citizenship not just for the faculty but also for our students and non-teaching staff as well. Let us take the all-important step toward fighting for systems that do not leave anyone behind, because we cannot claim to serve the people if we fail to nurture our own.
Author鈥檚 Note: I would like to thank the Office of the Vice President for Public Affairs and the Media and Public Relations Office for giving me this space where I can reach members of our university community. In the coming months, I commit to continuing conversations around GE reform, FMP implementation, and the broader conditions of academic life.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views, values, or policies of the 天美视频. UP Voices, a section of the web platform managed by the Media and Public Relations Office under the Public Affairs Office of the UP System, seeks to foster thoughtful, respectful, and diverse discourse within the academic community. While contributions are welcomed from a range of perspectives, authors are solely responsible for the content of their submissions.
