Madelyn Grace P.

Palomares Comm 1-JX

A Calling for an Educational Reform

Education reform advocates are clamouring for an additional two years in basic

education. It has been said that the Filipino educational system is poor compared to its

neighbouring countries like Singapore and Malaysia because of the length in time. The resulting

collapse in school quality diminishes the school’s capacity to raise even basic literacy of young

children. That is why the government is searching for solution that will resolve this major

problem and they think that adding two more years in basic education curriculum is the answer.

While teacher quality is central to the solution, our teachers, no matter how good,

cannot teach well in a crowded classroom, without the proper books, or even proper rooms.

Similarly, our teachers, no matter how good, cannot teach well, with an overcrowded curriculum,

when they are being required to teach more than their counterparts anywhere in the world, in a

significantly shorter period of time. Nor can our students learn properly, when we are asking

them to learn too much, too soon. What students in other countries are expected to learn in 12

years, we are asking our students to learn in 10. Consequently, more often than not, our students

are being forced to learn concepts more complex than their developmental profile permits. It is

then no wonder that our students cannot read properly nor pass our own diagnostic exams.

I am in favor in the addition of two years in basic education to provide quality education

and in order for the Filipino graduates to be globally competitive. A quality education has the

power to transform societies in a single generation, provide children with the protection they

need from the hazards of poverty, labour exploitation and disease, and give them the knowledge,

skills, and confidence to reach their full potential.

 The plan is not just to add years to the current education cycle but to conduct an actual

review of the whole curriculum and to come up with a more simplified new basic education

program focused on enhancing the competencies of high school graduates. This would mean that

the irrelevant subjects currently taught in schools would be taken out of the curriculum while

new subjects would be incorporated to develop the technical and vocational skills of the students.

It will also focus on what is lacking in the current system. It also involves analyzing the major

characteristics of the school’s internal and external environments that will ultimately reject

support or render impotent the thrust of a change initiative.

This proposal of the government is not just for well-heeled Filipinos who can spend

money for the two more years in basic education but also for poor family who cannot send their

children to college because the proposal include vocational courses to make high school

graduates productive and employable even if they do not go to college. Students who would go

to school for two extra years would have more knowledge and would be more competitive even

if they do not get college degrees.

Also, in line with the Bologna Accord, an agreement among 46 European nations which

took effect at the start of this year, Philippine undergraduate degrees would no longer be

recognized there because they are not compatible with their own schools. The Bologna Accord is

an international agreement which sets compatible academic standards in Europe. The

Washington Accord sets accreditation for degree programs particularly in engineering and

architecture. Both accords require 12 years of education. Whether we like it or not, we have to

comply with the two international agreements to be globally competitive and so that Filipino
graduates can easily land jobs abroad. Therefore the addition of two years in basic education

curriculum is a must.

Yes, we lack budget for more classrooms, textbooks and faculties but we have

resolution for that problem and that is obtaining additional resources available only through

resource-generating methods. Lack of knowledge is costly. It is relatively easy to symbolically

raise the “quality” of schools. Education ministries commonly moved to fund textbooks with

coloured pictures, install science laboratories or convince willing donors to spruce up the

architecture of new schools. Involving policy reforms that shift limited resources to the most

effective school inputs and local interventions into how headmasters manage and how teachers

teach. The expense on additional books, classrooms and teachers will be an investment in our

people, our social capital who will propel the country to progress more. The needed budget

might appear huge but the return on investments in people will be worth the investment.

The proposal is praiseworthy as it provide quality education, render global

competitiveness and increase economic growth. The additional expenses in addition of two years

in basic education would be money well spent.

Ignorance is more expensive than education. Approval of this proposal is a must. So what

are we waiting for? Our country’s triumph against poverty and low standard education is now

before us.
 Works Cited
David, Chapman W. and Carrier, Carol A. Improving Educational Quality. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1980.

Hanson, Ernest Mark. Educational Administration and Organizational Behaviour.

Massachussettes: A Simon and Schuster Company, 1996.

Quismundo, Terra. "Philippine Daily Inquirer." Educational sector split 12-years basic ed,
August 13, 2010.

Cabacungan, Gil. "Philippine Daily Inquirer." Senators Back 12 years of basic education, August
11, 2010.

Baltazar, Chito. "Philippine Daily Inquirer." 12 year basic education: a quality imperative,
August 28, 2010.