31/05/2026
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ | ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง: ๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฆ, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฆ
Change is not always bad. Moving forward is not always wrong. But when a major change is handed to students without warning, without clear explanation, and without ever asking if they are even ready for itโthat is not progress. That is a problem.
This is exactly what is happening with the College Retention Examination, or CRE, at the Tarlac State University College of Education (TSU-COEd). This year, the administration decided to take the exam digitally. Instead of the usual pen and paper, students will now take the CRE on their own smartphones or tabletsโ inside the collegeโs classrooms, connected to WiFi, using a specific browser. The exams are set for June 3 to 5, and students were only informed with barely a week to prepare.
What makes this worse is that the decision was made entirely by the administrationโ planned and finalized behind closed doors, with no student consultation at any point in the process. Students were not asked. They were simply told. Students have questions. They deserve real answers.
This was attested by incumbent governor Salak saying, โHindi po totoo na kami ang may suggestion ng router. Tinawag po ako sa meeting na maayos na ang lahat. Never po kaming nagdesisyon sa COEd-SC nang hindi naitatanong ang mga estudyante.โ
The CRE is a yearly exam given to students who are moving up to their second, third, or fourth year in the College of Education. It has been around for a few years now, and for the first two years, it was a straightforward paper exam.
The administration has said the CRE is partly meant to help students prepare for the Licensure Examination for Professional Teachers, or LEPTโ the board exam that education graduates must pass to become licensed teachers.
That is a fair and reasonable goal. Future teachers should be prepared. But the way this yearโs CRE is being run raises serious concerns about fairness.
Students were told about the new digital format with only about one week to get ready. That means one week to make sure their phone or tablet meets the technical requirements,it needs to run Android 11 or higher with at least 4GB of memory, or iOS 15 or higher for Apple devices. One week to download and set up the Opera browser.
One student says, โHindi lahat ng estudyante ay may maayos na cellphone. Hindi lahat ay may tablet. Hindi lahat ay may sapat na storage, mabilis na processor, upang makasabay sa digital examination. Ang iba nga ay nakikihiram lamang ng gadget.โ
Given that the CRE tight schedule was caused by the new school calendar, which moves the start of classes to July. But that calendar change came from the administration. If the administration changed the calendar, the administration should have planned ahead to make sure students were not caught off guard. Passing the problem down to students at the last minute is not a solution.
Here is where things get even more confusing. Students are being required to pay PHP 150 each. The reason given? To cover the cost of the WiFi routers that will be used in the examination rooms.
Let that sink in. Students are being asked to pay for the collegeโs internet equipment.
Before, when the CRE was on paper, students paid for test booklets, materials they personally used. But routers are not something students use and take home. They are equipment for the college. So why are students the ones buying them?
There has been no clear, official answer to this question. No written breakdown of where the money goes. No explanation of who approved the collection or what happens to the routers after the exam. Students are simply told to pay and expected not to ask why.
Another significant concern is that not every student owns a device capable of meeting the exam's technical requirements. Many budget smartphones commonly used by students do not qualify. As a result, students who cannot afford more advanced devices may face difficulties in accessing the examination, placing them at a disadvantage due to financial limitations rather than academic ability.
In response to the issue, the League of Prospective English Educators has begun seeking help from fourth-year students by borrowing devices for fellow English majors who lack access to compatible gadgets needed for the examination.
One student even posted on the Facebook group of Firefox League asking if anyone could lend them a phone because they could not download the required software. This case speaks badly of the system. No student should have to beg for a borrowed phone the night before an exam that determines whether they move on to the next year. An institution should not rely on student generosity to cover for its own lack of planning.
Students have also directed some of their frustration at the College of Education - College Student Council (COEd-CSC), specifically asking whether the council spoke up for students before this decision was made. The short answer, based on what is known, is that no formal student consultation took place. The shift to the digitalized CRE was planned and decided strictly by the administration.
Moreover, CSC Governor Pauline Salak, denied that the council suggested the router arrangement, and clarified that the council was only called into a meeting when the plans were already finalized. In other words, by the time students heard about it, the decision had already been made.
She also said that the CRE cannot simply be removed because the paperwork reaches all the way up to the Board of Regentsโ meaning it is a long, complicated process to change.
That may be true. But the issue here is not just whether the CRE can be removed. The issue is that students were never consulted about a change that directly affects them. A decision this significantโone that touches on what devices students need to own, how much they need to pay, and whether they move on to the next year โshould not be made without their input.
Before any student sits down to take the digitalized CRE, the following questions need to be answered clearly, officially, and in writing.
On the PHP 150. Where, precisely, will the PHP 150 collected from each examinee go? Who authorized this collection? Will there be full financial transparency and accounting after the examination period?
On devices. What is the plan for students who do not own a qualifying phone or tablet? Is there any official support, or are students on their own?
On the timeline. Who decided to push through with the digital format this year despite the compressed schedule? Was there any assessment of whether students were ready?
On student input. The administration planned and finalized this change on its own. Students were never consulted โ not before the decision, not during the planning, and not before the announcement. This must change going forward.
The CRE was meant to raise standards. To make sure that future teachers are ready, not just for the next school year, but for the real demands of the profession.
That is something worth supporting.
But an exam that puts students at a disadvantage based on what phone they own, that charges them for equipment they do not keep, and that gives them barely a week to prepareโ that exam is not testing their readiness to teach.
It is testing their patience.
And students have been patient long enough.
***
Since this editorial was first written, the administration has reversed its earlier decision. Following an emergency meeting involving the Office of the University President, the Supreme Student Council President, the Officer-in-Charge Vice President for Academic Affairs, the College of Education Dean, and the College Student Council Governor, the College Retention Examination has been shifted back to the traditional paper-and-pencil format. The examination has also been rescheduled to June 17โ19, with results expected on June 30.
The decision is a welcome one. It removes many of the concerns that students raised regarding device compatibility, internet reliability, additional expenses, and the limited preparation period. More importantly, it shows that these concerns were neither isolated nor unreasonable.
At the same time, this reversal raises an important question: if the digital format could be reconsidered after a single emergency meeting, why were students not consulted before it was approved in the first place? The fact that the policy was eventually changed suggests that there were legitimate issues that should have been identified much earlier in the planning process.
This cancellation of the digitalized CRE should therefore be viewed not only as a correction of a policy but also as a lesson in governance. Consultation is not a formality to be conducted after concerns arise. It is a responsibility that must come before decisions are finalized. Students may not always agree with every policy, but they deserve the opportunity to understand, question, and contribute to discussions that directly affect their education.
Good governance is not measured by whether mistakes are avoided entirely. It is measured by whether those affected by a decision are given the opportunity to be heard before that decision is implemented. In this case, consultation came only after concerns had already escalated.
If there is one positive outcome from this controversy, it is the reminder that the strength of a university lies not only in its administration or its policies, but in the relationship of trust between the institution and its students. Trust is built through transparency. It is sustained through dialogue. And it grows when decisions are made not merely for students, but with them.
________
๐
๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ง๐, ๐๐๐๐ซ๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ
โ
โ
