I just don’t get it. Why do Philippine education officials insist that the solution to the country’s fast-sliding standard of education is to add one or two more years of schooling?
After earlier proposals by the Department of Education and the Commission on Higher Education to add an extra year between the sixth grade and first year high school and an extra year to certain college courses were rebuked by parents and teachers alike, the incoming administration of President-elect Benigno Aquino III, through former and presumptive returning Education Secretary Florencio Abad, now tells us that it will add one year each to grade school and secondary school to improve the country’s education system.
Abad said the 12-year system would include seven years of elementary education, five years of secondary schooling, and an extra year of pre-schooling before Grade 1. He said the 12-year plan was part of Aquino’s 10-point agenda, and that the current system of six years in grade school and four years in high school was obsolete.
In 2004, the Department of Education was all set to implement a “Pre-Secondary Bridge Program,” which would add an extra year between sixth grade and first year high school for elementary graduates who were found to be deficient in English, Math and Science subjects. But a hail of criticisms met the plan, and education officials backed off.
Through the “Pre-Secondary Bridge Program,” education officials said they hoped to arrest the trend of poor showing by public school students, especially in these subjects. Diagnostic tests conducted by the DOE in 2003 and 2004 found that 7 out of 10 incoming public school freshmen had been found wanting in the mastery of their English, Math and Science subjects.
Under the program, those who were found deficient in these three subjects would be required to take the one-year program, which would only tackle the three subjects, for two hours each every school day. The students wouldn’t be allowed to enter public high school until they passed the subjects.
However, the same teachers who taught the subjects to the lagging students would be teaching them, making me wonder then what made education officials think that what the teachers failed to make students appreciate and understand for six years would be appreciated and understood by these students in one year?
And then early last year, CHED chairman Manny Angeles proposed a 10+2+3 scheme to enable the country’s education system to “conform with global standards while equipping students with the skills necessary for them to be competitive both in the local and international job market.”
Under the scheme, students, after the completion of 10-year basic education (6 years primary and 4 years secondary education), may opt to go to technical schools or take a two-year pre-university program before finally pursuing the three years specialization courses.
Angeles also said the proposed curricular reform would be implemented in two phases with Phase 1 taking effect starting next school year (2009-2010) for five-year degree programs in Education, Nursing, Accounting, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Pharmacy.
The program never got off the ground as Malacanang withdrew its support following protests by parents and teachers.
It is good to know that the incoming administration is giving priority to improving the standard of education in the Philippines.
About five years ago, tests conducted among eighth grade students (second year high school equivalent in the Philippines) in 38 countries showed that Philippine students were at the bottom of the list as far as proficiency in math and science was concerned.
The results surprised me because many young Filipino students who were just average students in the Philippines become honor students in the American school system, getting good grades particularly in math and science subjects. This seems to show that the problem not really lies much with the individual students, but in the way they are taught. Either the teachers are not communicating well with the students, or the teachers are not getting the attention of the students.
The Philippine education system has simply failed to cultivate their intelligence to the proper level. Although the Philippines churns out the highest percentage of college graduates every year, many of these graduates sometimes cannot even make simple arithmetic calculations nor understand basic science principles.
Will two extra years for Filipino students solve the problem? I don’t think so.
The extra year will only discourage thousands of parents, who are already saddled by the high cost of sending their children to even public schools, to send them to school. This would be even more disastrous because it is not just the proficiency rating in the three subjects that would suffer, but the very future of tens of thousands of students.
The two extra years will further aggravate the dismal classroom situation, and there will be more students cramped in the already overcrowded classrooms, making it even more difficult for both teachers and students to focus on teaching and studying. If they are serious in implementing the two extra years, they better build more classrooms first.
The DOE has to look at the deteriorating standard of education in the Philippines on a wider perspective. There could be a hundred reasons why students are not as good as they were, say 20 or 30 years ago.
For one, good teachers are lured into going abroad, to work as maids or chambermaids in Hongkong, Singapore, the Middle East or in Europe. Secondly, fewer people are enrolling in education courses and thus, schools don’t have much choice in selecting teachers.
Inversely, the number of students in public schools has increased many folds. Teachers have to teach to a class that sometimes number more than 50 students, certainly not an ideal environment to make students learn. School facilities are old and wanting, and many public schools are in rundown condition. The increasing number of students has also resulted in some public schools forced to having two to three shifts of classes, thus cramping so many subjects in so few hours.
Both the teachers and the students are often not in the right frame of mind while in school. Many teachers worry about financial problems at home, and many students are also distracted by family and financial problems. That’s why I like the idea of extending the Arroyo administration’s cash transfer program, which gives poor families P1,500 a month for keeping their children in school.
What the government needs to do is increase the budget for education. While a big chunk of the budget goes to the military, education, which ultimately affects a nation’s future, gets a measly share. A law should be passed allocating a big portion of the lawmakers’ pork barrel funds to build more classrooms and repair existing ones in their respective districts.
The Philippines remains one of the countries with the highest literacy rates in the world. But the students’ literacy is not directed towards careers that will eventually bring growth and progress to the country, such as in the fields of computers, engineering, technology and scientific research. Instead, Philippine colleges and universities continue to produce graduates in the business and the arts. They produce too many business management graduates, when there are very few businesses to manage. There are also too many graduates of commerce and political science, many of whom end up jobless or working as sales clerks in the malls.
The Philippines should redirect the students’ energy and enthusiasm to math, science, engineering and computer sciences, and feel the impact of growth in the years to come. What the country needs is a redirecting of the country’s education system, better teachers and more classrooms, not two extra years.