Skip to main content

The President Edgardo J. Angara (PEJA) Fellowship

UP PEJA Fellowship will have a 2026 run in partnership with the Department of Education (DepEd). Ten (10) fellowships will be awarded with DepEd funding, and another five (5)  through UP Foundation Inc.

The fellowship is open to faculty members, researchers, and scholars residing in the Philippines or abroad who have distinguished themselves in policy research, who have leadership potential, and who have demonstrated commitment to service in both public and private sectors. Former UP PEJA Fellows are also eligible to apply, subject to the same evaluation process. The fellowship may be awarded to an individual or to a team, subject to the evaluation and approval of the Committee whose members are appointed by the UP Board of Regents. Proponents can submit individual or collaborative research proposals for consideration by the Selection Committee for larger-scale studies.

Proposed Research Areas

1.Basic Education 

    • How can Philippine basic education institutions be systematically categorized (by governance type, program scope, enrolment size, geographic context, and performance profile) to enable differentiated policy guidance, funding formulas, and support mechanisms that improve delivery quality? 
    • To what extent do current DepEd resource allocation systems — including science and math equipment, TVL tools, Master Teacher deployment, and supervisory assignments — reflect and respond to actual instructional demand, subject specialization needs, and school typologies? 
    • How do teachers’ undergraduate and graduate specializations, years of subject-specific experience, and deployment continuity shape the development of subject- or stage-specific expertise, and to what extent are current assignment practices aligned with curricular and developmental demands? 
    • To what extent do current selection, assignment, and role definitions for Master Teachers, Education Program Supervisors, and regional specialists reflect demonstrated subject-matter or stage-specific expertise — and how might specialist pathways be more clearly defined, recognized, and intentionally developed across teaching, mentoring, and supervisory roles? 
    • How is instructional supervision currently practiced across school, division, and regional levels, which practices demonstrably improve pedagogy and learning outcomes, and what institutional, competency, and belief-system shifts are required to transition toward a coaching-oriented model? 
  1. TVET 
    •  How does the governance, financing, quality assurance, and labor market alignment structure of Australia’s TAFE/VET system compare to the Philippine TVET system, and what institutional reforms may be derived for strengthening Philippine TVET? 
    • How do employer-based skills levy systems function across selected countries (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), and what policy design options could be feasibly adapted to strengthen sustainable TVET financing in the Philippines? 
    • How can public TVET institutions in the Philippines be classified using a typology that reflects diversification, differentiation, and democratization, and what evaluation index can be constructed to guide funding and policy decisions? How might this look like vis–a-vis higher education, and is there potential or need for a unified tertiary education typology? 
    • To what extent does the TESDA STAR rating system effectively measure institutional quality and improve outcomes in Philippine TVET institutions? For instance, how does the STAR rating correlate with employment outcomes, and how does it incentivize genuine quality improvement or compliance behavior? 
    • What are the comparative advantages and limitations of rule-based versus principle-based quality assurance systems in TVET, and which model is most appropriate for the Philippine context?
  1. Higher Education
    • What regulatory, institutional, and socio-cultural barriers affect the recruitment, admission, integration, and retention of foreign students and faculty in Philippine higher education, and what CHED policy strategies and inter-agency mechanisms can reduce these barriers while safeguarding regulatory integrity? 
    • How do CHED’s leadership qualification guidelines shape the pool of eligible candidates and the dynamics of presidential selection in SUCs and LUCs, particularly with respect to equity of access, institutional diversity, and regional representation? 
    • How effective are CHED’s Technical Panels and Committees in developing program standards and curricular frameworks that are responsive to workforce development priorities, aligned with industry requirements, national skills frameworks, or international accords where relevant, and attentive to the broader intellectual, cultural, and societal functions of higher education? 
    • To what extent does program duplication between SUCs/LUCs and private HEIs within the same locality affect system efficiency, quality, and fiscal sustainability? 
    • How can public investment and private capacity be strategically aligned to support system differentiation, including the development of flagship institutions and specialized teaching-oriented or technical institutions?