Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12-year Basic Education in the Philippines

With the settling in of the new administration, new programs and proposals are also being developed - a 12-year basic education
cycle being one of them. This proposal aims to add one (1) year in elementary and another year in high school in the Philippines'
current educational system.

The reason behind this proposal is that our high school graduates are unfit for getting a job right after graduation because of the
lack of years, unlike in other countries where the standard is 12 years (from grades 1 through 12). In fact, the Philippines has the
least number of years in basic education in the whole of Asia.

According to Education Secretary Luistro, we were perhaps too focused on academics that we have not been able to produce
graduates that satisfy the needs of the Industry. According to the proponents' reasoning, if we can add two years to the basic
education, then high school graduates can opt NOT to proceed to college and still be able to get a decent job - this is because the
additional two years would be focused on industry skill development. While I believe that this proposal is a very noble idea in
that can supposedly uplift the quality of our graduates, I think it would be difficult to implement especially considering the
economic situation of the country. I have heard some reactions of the people to this proposal and I do agree with most of them -
an additional two years would mean additional two years of financial burden for the parents. Instead of actually helping our
youth, it could backfire and even result in a lesser number of children being able to attend school. Now, unless the government
can churn up funding for this proposal, I will remain skeptical about this.

In another light, if cheaper education is being sought, then public schools have answered that. While there is no "free" education,
public schools make education available and more affordable for those in the lower financial stratum. Still, if we look at the state
of many of the public schools around the country, you could say that most are really pitiful.

Funding is not the only issue involved with this. I dare say, if they can produce the funding to extend the years in school, why not
prioritize for now what we already have and improve from there? The government could instead direct the funding to putting up
additional classrooms, purchasing newer textbooks, and training teachers to improve their competence, among others.

The key here, I believe, is SUSTAINABLE education. What's the point of a good educational program if the target beneficiaries
do not even have the money to finish schooling?

I am not entirely against the idea of a 12-year basic education because I believe that progress starts from education. But I would
like the government to consider the sustainability of such a proposal. The idea is mature enough - it's the implementation plan
that I see is premature. After all, the greater impact would be felt by the younger generations who are at a critical stage in their
development.

Education is a long term solution to the problems that we face. That's why we have to be extremely careful about the decisions
that we make regarding this because the effects would ripple through generations.

Note: This article contains my thoughts and opinions on the issue. I do not mean to criticize or oppose anyone.

Facts taken from:

Yahoo! News and Manila Bulletin

Photo taken from: http://www.myce101.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/elementary-computer-literacy.jpg

DepEd to phase in 12 years of basic education

following is the reprint of an article dated Aug. 9, 2010 by Pia Faustino, GMANews.TV:

http://mlephil.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/2282/
High school graduates can be productively employed even without a college degree once two years are added to basic education,
Education Secretary Armin Luistro said today.

The education chief recently announced his plan to implement President Noynoy Aquino’s agenda of increasing the basic
education cycle from the current 10 years to 12 years, a plan that he referred to as the “enhanced K+12 basic education program.”

He explained that “K” refers to “Kindergarten” while the number “12″ refers to the sum of seven years of grade school and five
years of high school.

He said that these reforms will be implemented gradually over a number of years and may go beyond the term of the current or
even next administration.

Luistro said that the Department of Education (DepEd) is currently working on a concept paper that will outline the proposed
revisions to the public school curriculum and how these will be implemented and funded. He added that DepEd will present the
proposal to the public on October 5, 2010, which is World Teachers’ Day, so that all education stakeholders can give their
feedback.

Luistro said that these reforms will aim to ensure that future high school graduates are ready to be productively employed even
without completing college.

“The current thinking and the current culture in the Philippines is that if you don’t finish with a college degree, there is something
missing in your life. What should basic education be? To me, what is basic is that [high school graduates] should be able to live a
meaningful life, they should be able to be prepared to start a family, and thirdly they should be able to be productively
employed,” explained Luistro.

He added that the DepEd will explore how public schools can better develop Filipino’ students skills and talents in the arts,
sports, agriculture, fisheries, and in technical or vocational fields, among others.

“Perhaps our current curriculum is too academic in orientation,” said Luistro. “What are the needs of industry? You need to
match that with the gifts, resources, and interests of young people.”

Re-examine reform priorities

But some educators believe that DepEd should re-examine its reform priorities.

“Our immediate focus should be just improving basic education. The dropout rate is very, very high and the quality of education
is very, very low,” says Milwida Guevara, chief executive officer of Synergeia, an NGO that focuses on improving the quality of
public school education through greater local government support.

Guevara said that DepEd should focus instead on improving the quality of education in kindergarten, pre-school, and in grades
one to four of elementary school. She added that adding two years to the education cycle “will address the problem of the lack of
quality of students in the high school, and also in the university, but it does not address the problem in earlier years of schooling.”

She said that as many as 30 percent of students who enter grade one drop out before grade six, and that these figures are higher in
some areas of Mindanao. “It’s too late to have an intervention after grade six,” she said.

DepEd’s proposal also drew mixed reactions from visitors to the GMANews.TV Facebook Fan Page.

“Add two more years for high school? Para sa apat na years na high school nga lang, kulang na ang budget ng mga magulang.
Dadagdagan mo pa ng dalawa? And besides, from the start,hindi naman ‘yung years ang problema, kundi ung kakulangan ng
libro and materials para sa mga students, pati na rin ung kakulangan sa teachers,” said Facebook user Kevin Taboada.

(Parents can hardly afford to pay for four years of high school, and yet they want to add two more years? Besides, the number of
years is not the problem. It’s the lack of books and educational materials for students, and the lack of teachers.)

Other Facebook users believed the proposal would help make Filipino graduates more globally competitive. Dubai-based OFW
Hannah Zipporah Tayo said, “Natapos ko ang 10 years high school standard sa ‘Pinas, and I had to pursue further studies in
Dubai. None of the universities and colleges accepted me, kasi ‘di nila recognize ang 10 years standard. Siguro nga kailangan ng
upgrade ang curriculum!”

(I finished ten years of high school in the Philippines, and I had to pursue further studies in Dubai. None of the universities and
colleges accepted me because they did not recognize my ten years of education. I think the curriculum should be upgraded!)

Dennis Montas Lorejo, a Filipino who teaches in the United States, wrote, “To conform with the global standard, we must move
to a 12-year basic education. Also, strengthen the teachers knowledge and skills so that they may bring better instructions to their
students. Upgrade the school facilities, impose the use of technology in schools, raise teachers salary, and a lot more. But we
must start with something, right?”

April Joy Cruz said, “Quality is better than quantity. Tingin ko, kahit dagdagan ng two years, pero ang situation ng mga public
school students na 60 to 80 students per class, walang upuan at libro, para lang nagsasayang ng oras sa eskwelahan kung wala rin
naman matututunan.”

(We can add two years, but for as long as classrooms still have to be shared by 60 to 80 students, and for as long as these students
have no books or chairs to use, our students will be wasting their time learning nothing.) - HS, GMANews.TV

Five reasons for an expanded high school program

Copyright 2010 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20100814-286805/Five-reasons-for-an-expanded-high-school-
program

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 19:16:00 08/14/2010

Filed Under: Education

1. Global competitiveness

The global standard for basic education is 12 years (Unesco). Philippine basic education is the shortest cycle of any country in
Asia for those interested in university (six grades of elementary plus four years of high school). Viewed from the outside, this
cycle is not seen as long enough to cover subject matter other countries now include as part of basic education. Instead, we cram
the same 12-year curriculum into a short 10-year cycle. The result: skimpy coverage leading to little or poor learning. Two more
years of schooling will give children more time to read, write and do exercises and problem sets for the same global curriculum.

2. Preparation for college

The Presidential Task Force on Education set up by the Arroyo administration concluded that high school graduates are not
adequately prepared for university as evidenced by the number of failures in college entrance examinations. At the same time,
universities are having to expand the number of years to complete a full degree. Fewer universities now offer a degree in four
years. Most courses include up to three summers to complete or the equivalent of an additional year. Why the additional year of
college? Because first year college offerings called “General Education” are, in fact, high school subjects. An additional year of
high school will better prepare students for university.

3. Preparation for world of work

A survey by the Department of Education (DepEd) in 2005 revealed that 44 percent of public high school graduates were not
interested in university and preferred to work, even at age 16. Are high school school graduates ready for the world of work? Are
employers finding high school graduates ready for work? The consensus among employers: A high school diploma with its
current coverage is inadequate for their purposes. Graduates show deficiencies in their ability to communicate, to think logically
and to solve problems. The levels of math, basic science and English language skills are below par. An extra year of high school
with technical-vocational subjects will provide the additional time needed to more properly mold graduates for the world of
work.

4. Public support for 5th year of high school

In August 2003, DepEd commissioned Social Weather Stations to poll the general public in preparation for the high school
Bridge Program in 2004. Seventy percent of parents agreed to a bridge year (and therefore a five-year high school) if their
children were found to score low on the high school readiness test. More in Mindanao (76 percent) agreed than in Luzon (69
percent), the Visayas (67 percent) or Metro Manila (65 percent). Ten percent were undecided and 20 percent disagreed. Among
socioeconomic classes, all agreed to the additional year of high school to the same extent (ABC = 72 percent versus D and E = 70
percent). Household heads with only an elementary education were more supportive of the additional year (73 percent) than those
with at least a college education (64 percent). Clearly, those with less education did not wish their children would have the same
fate.

5. Parents for Bridge Program.

In May 2004, DepEd conducted the national high school readiness test to determine the preparedness of elementary graduates for
high school. Less then 1 percent passed the test at 75 percent mean passing score (MPS); 7.5 percent passed at a 50 percent MPS.
Based on this, half of all elementary graduates were to take the bridge year to better prepare them for regular high school (i.e. a
five-year high school). The other 50 percent would go directly to HS-I and take a four-year high school course. In June 2004,
then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo moved to cancel the program. With DepED moving as a group, a compromise was
reached: The bridge year would be voluntary: “Parents will decide at enrollment whether to send their children to the Bridge
Program or to the regular High School I.” A total of 2,945 schools offered the bridge on a voluntary basis (49.33 percent of all
high school) enrolling 240,885 students (20.77 percent of the freshman cohort). The voluntary enrollment showed that a
significant number of families nationwide accepted the value of the additional year of schooling for their children’s future. Juan
Miguel Luz