A good system of education is one of the important
foundations of a progressive country. A literate populace provides strong
manpower that is usually translated into a healthy economy. The Philippines,
for the longest time, takes pride of being one of the most literate countries
in the world. This explains why our
country is one of the largest providers of professionals and laborers around
the globe. But this does not mean that
we do not have any problem on our education system.
Obviously, we have and there are lots of them. The lack of
classrooms, chairs and books are just among them. Add the shortage in the number
of teachers to that and you get the formula to having a steadily decreasing
quality of education.
And to address these problems, the Department of Educationor DepEd , the government’s education arm introduces this system that they call
“K to 12” which simply means Kindergarten plus 12 years of primary and
secondary education. Before it was in place, there are only 10 years of
combined years for elementary and high school.
According to our DepEd officials, one of the main reasons
that they decided to introduce K to 12 in our country is that we are the only
country left especially in the Southeast Asia that has only 10 years of basic
education. And with that, we are being left behind. They think that this will
help improving the quality of education in our country.
K to 12 for them is meant to be an answer to the major problems in
education. But if we check on the most obvious issues (i.e. shortage of
teachers, lack of classrooms, chairs and books) isn’t it adding up 2 years just
aggravates these problems?
I would not want to judge the system totally as I’m sure
that there are a lot of other good reasons by the DepEd to put the K to 12
system in place. But I would like to share my analysis and suggestions that
might help in improving this new system. And if some lawmaker or DepEd official
might stumble upon this blog, I hope they can consider some suggestions from here.
I provided here some key issues that the DepEd is targeting
thru K to 12.
a. Improving the competitiveness of students.
Advantages – With the added years, the curriculum and years of
teaching will be lengthened. Teachers will have more time to teach and focus on
their specific subjects. Additional subjects will also be introduced that will
add value to the students even before they enter college.
Disadvantages – Unless the lack of
resources is addressed, the added 2 years will be a burden rather than a
blessing both to the schools and the students. With classrooms already crowded,
where will the schools conduct classes for the additional levels? And where
would they get the teachers to do the job amidst the shortage? And let’s also
remember that there are some numbers of students who cannot even finish the
previous length of basic education which was only 10 years due to financial
problems. Imagine what the added 2 years would do to them.
My suggestion – They should first focus on each issue
one by one. More than the DepEd budget, our lawmakers should provide larger chunk
of their pork barrel in building of classrooms and other facilities. The local
government should also do their research and feasibility studies to address the
problem in school resources. Then the output of this study will be the basis of
a long term program targeting, for example a 50 student per classroom or 1 book
per student status.
Then
on the shortage of teachers, why can’t the government create a separate
scholarship program for teachers just like what they do with the DOST SEI
program, this time the DepEd being the stakeholder of the program. Thru this,
the government will provide budget subsidizing education that includes tuition
fees and necessary allowances for all aspiring teachers. With this program, it
will encourage more of our students to take up education in college and will
also address unemployment rate due to mismatches of skills with the needed
manpower in our country.
Then
lastly, increase the salary of our teachers.
b. Work will be available for our students after
K+12 even without entering college.
Advantages – Having partnered with CHED
and TESDA, the necessary knowledge and skills will be injected in the K to 12
curriculums. This can address shortage on manpower needed by some industries
that do not require college degree.
Disadvantages – As mentioned earlier, some students cannot even finish
the current 10 years of basic education. And also, we can’t say that the current
program is not enough preparation for college as it still produces good graduates
who performs well in their tertiary education and succeeds later in career. And
by adding 2 more years, this will also add burden to those who seemed not in a
need for the added years for their preparation to college.
My Suggestion – Provide options. Like for those who can’t
afford going to college after the initial 10 years of basic education can have
the +2 years to learn the skills and needed expertise to land them on those
jobs that does not require a college degree. And if they want to pursue college
education after that, they will be free to do so.
Or,
we can have assessment examinations on students in the fourth year high school
regarding their preparedness of entry to college. Actually, we’re already doing
it thru the NSAT and before with NCEE. It’s just a matter of customizing it to
what this program needs. Those who will pass the exams can go to college and
those who are not will be required to undergo this 2 years. Or it can be just a
year and after that, another exam will be taken. And if still they are not able
to pass, then another year will be added. And these added years required for
them will not be wasted even if they are not able to reach college level as it
will also include trainings on technical skills which will be suited for them
to get jobs after school.
To
summarize it, it’s just like any national concern that we have. It does not
necessarily mean that if the other countries are doing it, we should also do
the same. We also need to check first if we have the same level of readiness
with them for us to apply the same system that they are already using. The case
for them may not be the same for us and we might need tailor-made programs to
match what our country needs. In the
end, we know ourselves more than anybody else and we are the most capable
persons to know what’s good for us and what is not.
If you find this article interesting, you may share this article on your Twitter, Facebook or other social network accounts via the the specified buttons below or the floating icons. Thanks for the visit and hope that you also like our
Facebook page “The Ignored Genius”(see the like button on the mid-upper right part of
this page) or follow me on Twitter @ignoredgenius. Thanks!