The recent decision of the Department of Education (DepEd) to revert to the old June-to-March academic calendar forces Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to make another round of institutional adjustments. It’s quite unfair as it compels HEIs to bear the burden of a policy reversal that they neither initiated nor consulted on.
When DepEd originally shifted to an August-to-May calendar, HEIs were required to align their academic schedules accordingly. This alignment was not merely for compliance but for the practical need to synchronize graduation timelines, teacher training, practicum schedules, and institutional partnerships. The shift cost HEIs significant time, resources, and logistical planning. Now, with DepEd reversing course, HEIs are once again placed in a difficult position—having to overhaul their academic calendars and recalibrate their operations without sufficient transition mechanisms.
The effects of this reversal go beyond administrative reshuffling. It affects faculty contracts, summer offerings, international academic collaborations, and long-term strategic planning. Curriculum mapping has to be redone. Budget forecasts will need to be revised. More importantly, students and parents will have to endure disruptions in enrollment timelines, OJT coordination, and even the licensing exam preparations for graduates. The ripple effects are immense, and it is difficult to understand why HEIs should be placed at the receiving end of a decision they had no say in.
It is troubling that major policy swings are made without thorough consultation and consideration of how deeply interconnected the educational sectors are. Higher education may be under a different commission, but its operations are directly tied to the outcomes and flow of basic education. In an education system that prides itself on coherence and continuity, this lack of coordination only proves the persistence of disjointed governance. HEIs are expected to follow blindly, absorb the impact, and adjust instantly—this is not leadership; this is imposition.
What must be done now is for the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to take a clear, assertive position and engage DepEd in serious dialogue. A coordinated framework must be institutionalized moving forward—one that considers the academic, economic, and human cost of policy changes. HEIs should not always be treated as passive recipients of DepEd’s unilateral decisions. The entire academic ecosystem deserves synchronized planning, honest communication, and institutional respect.
