“There is no darkness but ignorance,” wrote William Shakespeare in his play, Twelfth Night. Given how it has gone about evaluating Philippine maritime schools and choosing which ones can continue their baccalaureate programmes for ship officers, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) can aptly be described as a house of darkness.
The institutional ignorance is appalling. It is evident from a memorandum issued by CHED chairwoman Patricia Licuanan on 12th March 2015 to clarify the downgrading of ship officer schools considered below par to schools for ratings. Licuanan’s five-page missive to the schools is long-winded, but the following excerpt (itals. are ours) should illustrate the point:
“Since 2006, the country’s persistent breach of global maritime standards has led the European auditors of its certification system to assert in October 2013 that major shortcomings have not been addressed despite significant changes in the last two years. This critical finding severely threatened the continuing inclusion of the Philippines in the IMO White List of countries eligible to provide the international merchant marine fleet with maritime officers and officers-in-charge. We would have been voted out of the IMO White List in early 2014 but the European Union deferred its decision to decide on the country’s status in this list, subject to another validation visit in October 2014 to check on the country’s corrective actions vis-a-vis the conformances noted by the inspectors of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).”
CHED officials should know that the EMSA inspections have nothing to do with the so-called “IMO White List”. They are conducted on behalf of the European Commission, which is to decide, in consultation with EU member states, whether to derecognise Philippine crew certificates regardless of the country’s IMO standing. And why does the Commission confuse the officer certification system with the maritime education system? Certification and education are two different things. Indeed, the EMSA inspectors have been careful to make the distinction.
The memorandum further betrays the Commission’s lack of understanding by blaming maritime schools for their inability “to offer opportunities for well supervised shipboard training.” Apparently, CHED officials have not been told that the problem has beset the international maritime industry for decades and is beyond the control of the local schools. There are simply not enough training berths on oceangoing vessels.
True, Filipino cadets may train (at their own expense, we understand) on board the country’s interisland ferries to fulfill the 12-month apprenticeship required for graduation. But has the Commission bothered to monitor the quality of such shipboard training as part of its “outcomes-based evaluation”? Why hasn’t the State provided a single training ship to ease the problem?
Pity the maritime schools. They are being judged by those who are uninformed and unenlightened. ~Barista Uno
Feel free to comment on or share this article. You may also like:
There are so many things to consider why some maritime schools are considered below par.
Most of the students interested to take the degree have taken their primary and secondary education mostly in a public school. The public school system in the Philippines is far below the standard in US and Europe. The congested rooms, the shortened schooling hours, the limited number of qualified teachers to handle the already overcrowded classrooms with 60-80 students for every teacher will surely affect a student’s learning. Most of the students interested to enroll in a maritime course are coming from public schools.
As we know even in other countries, a maritime course is not a very enticing career to students who belong to well-to-do families. A family with means would rather have their sons or daughters take courses in medicine, nursing, engineering, business administration and others but not the maritime course. We have to accept the fact that majority of those interested to take the maritime course are those who belong to poor families as they want to improve the family income in a sure and fast manner. If in case the student comes from a family with a high status level, it is only to continue the father’s legacy which very seldom happens as the father himself discourages his son or the son does not like to continue his father’s footstep.
Going back to the type of students who would like to take the maritime course, this now serves as the difficulty of the maritime schools coupled with poor, outdated, or insufficient equipment the school or the university can offer as upgrading equipment and facilities needs a big sum of money. As the Bible says “many are called but few are chosen”. Many Filipinos are interested to take the maritime course aiming to be a Captain or a Chief Engineer someday. As CHED statistics showed, out of 2000 enrolled in a particular school, by the time they graduate there will only be one half that will be left to pursue the course.
Again there are many reasons behind this such as: financial problem, lack of determination to continue, shift to other course, decide to be employed rather than continue education. There are ship owners sponsoring some students of some well known schools but how about the other not so well known schools? The deserving students are not given the opportunity to continue their dreams. Then why do many Filipinos still become good seafarers despite of this difficulty? It is because Filipinos are resilient, determined to improve themselves by their own, fast learners and are still encouraged and strengthened by experienced officers who have mentored them and coached them in the proper manner.
Thus education is not the only factor why a seafarer has excelled in his job but through his own determination to achieve his goals, obligation to support his family, improve his life and elevate his status. This is a big and strong motivating factor why one exceeds in his chosen field. Moreover, the continuous training , mentoring, coaching that he receives from unselfish and well concerned senior officers have also contributed in making him outstanding in his chosen career as a seafarer.
The government is to blame for this, they shouldn’t allow schools that don’t have their own training ship or agreement with shipping companies to let their cadets undergo Shipboard training to operate in the first place. Just look at the top maritime schools in the country MAAP and PMMA, they don’t have a problem because all of their cadets are ensured of their shipboard training.
Someone must make a law for this.
I heard the Commission on Higher Education send a memorandum to all maritime schools that their permit will not be renewed unless they submit a MOA with a shipping lines where their students could undergo the apprenticeship program. Now these maritime schools who do not provide services to their students in finding a training ship are scrambling around looking for tie-ups with different shipping lines. Yes right why only now.
The EMSA Audit in a way has awaken the sleeping logs that being complacent in your duty will boomerang to you. However, it is not only the government body that should take the blame but also the maritime schools. For many years, some maritime schools, except for the few known ones, have not provided an extended service of helping their students find a shipping lines for the cadetship program. For them providing the 3 years in-school training is enough as long as they have regular number of enrollments each year that will generate enough profit, that will be fine and good.
Most of the marine students who did not have the chance of taking their apprenticeship program have ended up as taxi drivers or some working as clerk in a company. When I asked them why they did not pursue their course the common answer is that they don’t know where they will take their apprenticeship program. The school left the responsibility to them to find a shipping lines to complete their 1 year apprenticeship.
I pity individuals with dreams of becoming a marine officer but was deterred from achieving it just because of the schools’ lack of guidance to their chosen career. An educational institutions’ test of effectiveness is on how many of their students were able to find a job and practice their profession. All educational institutions have a social responsibility to extend an after service to their students by not only providing good education but also by creating jobs and rendering other services that would benefit their students, for after all, it is also their pride if their students become active contributors of the industry.
You are absolutely right, Virginia. Maritime cadets who are unable to fulfill the 12-month shipboard training required for graduation end up taking lowly jobs. Some even work as janitors. But this is a problem that affects all maritime schools in the country to varying degrees, including those which have cadetship programmes with foreign shipowners.
The logical solution apparently is for the schools to have their own training ships. But what support has the Government given to the schools so that they can acquire and operate the necessary bottoms without their losing an arm and a leg? Indeed, what incentives are available to the schools for the acquisition or upgrading of training equipment such as lifeboats and simulators? Zilch.