E-Portfolio entry #1: Reaction to When Reforms Don’t Transform: Reflections on Institutional

Reforms in the Department of Education (Bautista et al. 2008)

Understanding Where We Went Wrong: A Reflection on

“When Reforms Don’t Transform” by Bautista, Bernardo, & Ocampo (2008)

“Those who cannot learn from history  are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember
their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes. Those who do not read history are doomed to
repeat it. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat
them.” -George Santayana

The main question that the paper—“When Reforms Don’t Transform: Reflections on

Institutional Reforms in the Department of Education” by Ma. Cynthia Rose Bautista, Allan B.I.

Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo (2008)—seeks to address is one that has plagued the minds of all

Filipino education practitioners. With all the policy and reform initiatives of the Department of

Education, why do the same problems continue to plague our education system? What is so

wrong with our system that it seems as if we are and will perpetually be in crisis?

Specifically, Bautista et al. (2008) examine why “reforms have not transformed education

on the ground or why DepEd has found it difficult to translate structural reforms and

programmatic changes into large-scale, integrated and sustained outcomes” (p.5). They take on

these problems by a comprehensive discussion of (1) the partial implementation of RA9155

School Based Management (SBM) and the (2) inadequacy of national policies on learning and

pedagogy, specifically the language policy and the mother tongue. Through these discussions,

the paper shows the reasons behind the failure or inability to sustain reforms in the country.

The case studies are thorough and insightful. Discussions on the SBM began with placing

it in context; reforms in global education towards decentralization was consistent with shifts

along the same lines in other fields of discourse such as philosophy and governance. These
discussions were interesting for me because it underlines the fact that there is a collective

movement in ideals across different aspects of human experience, which is why education

reforms and trends coincide with movements in philosophy, literature, business, and others.

Victor Hugo’s quote holds true, nothing indeed is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

fields. The problem lies in its interpretation or implementation.

The roots of SBM in the Philippines are traced back to RA 9155, which the authors call a

policy “cover” for SBM. Bautista et al. (2008) describe the projects which carried out SBM—

BEAM and TEEP—each one’s scope and limitations, and the difference between the two.

BEAM is grounded on the constructivist learning philosophy, which is why capacity-building is

the focus, while TEEP is based on improving student achievement and following the global trend

on decentralization, which is why it allocated much resources on input. In this sense, BEAM had

a direction that was more solidly anchored on a Philosophy. Nevertheless, SBM was built into

these programs in varying capacities, which led to the improvement of students’ performance

and changes in organizational and classroom cultures. While implementation of SBM has been

slow with the different problems within the bureaucracy, it has nevertheless been received by the

concerned stakeholders.

This brings us to the second case, the problem of policies affecting pedagogy specifically

the language policy, which until now has not had a definitive answer. Bautista et al. (2008, p. 17)

underlines the fact that the bilingual national policy on language disregards the “linguistic

landscape of the Philippines and the role of language in literacy and learning.” In most other

parts of the world, education begins with the child’s mother tongue. This move is backed by

researches on a “systematic language programming towards improved learning outcomes for

children” or “how new language learning should be built upon a mastery of the child’s

2
native/mother language” (Bautista et al. 2008, p.21); Simply, that a child learns better when he

does not need to contend with difficulties in language at the same time. Bautista et al. (2008, p.

21) submit that the following reasons have kept DepEd from developing bilingual competence:

(1) DepEd formulated a weak policy on bilingual education that does not stand on strong

theoretical grounds; (2) they surrendered the power to decide on the language of schools rather

than advocate research-based policy; (3) there is a lack of effort to explain the crucial role of

language to policy makers; and finally (4), that DepEd has yet to negotiate a shift from structural

learning paradigms to more socio-constructivist methods.

With all these limitations and problems, DepEd formulated the Basic Education Sector

Reform Agenda (BESRA) in 2006 that hopes to take off from where previous reform initiatives

have failed. Bautista et al. (2008) enumerate how BESRA is remarkable: (1) it aims to change

the entire sector and not just specific target sites for pilot implementation; (2) it parallels the

Congress-initiated EDCOM but without the weaknesses on eventual action; (3) it integrates past

and present education reform frameworks; (4) there is now available research findings on

cognitive processes and strategies that have worked for reform projects; and (5) it has well-

defined and comprehensive Key Reform Thrusts (KRTs). BESRA is a step away from the

“typical pilot project design that isolates problem variables for intervention” that has proved to

be unsuccessful in past efforts; it now seeks to address simultaneously several areas of concern

(Bautista et al. 2008, p. 36). The authors then enumerate recommendations for moving BESRA

forward.

Policy reforms in the Philippines is tricky. Our education system, as a product of a

colorful history, is complex to say the least and most plans for wide-scale improvement is

usually caught up in political and cultural potholes. While at the onset, the pervading feeling

3
upon reading this paper is one of despair, it nevertheless ends with a hopeful note. The

realization is clear: that there is no moving forward without learning from the mistakes of the

past. It is evident from the breadth and width of the discussion by the authors, who are movers

and shakers at DepEd, that current efforts in Philippine educational reform is grounded on well-

studied historical and contemporary facts and data. With policies that are anchored in and

informed by the context where these will be implemented, it is hoped that these efforts will not

just fizzle out and instead will be sustainable and will manifest long-lasting results. As

practitioners of education in the Philippines, we all remain eternal optimists. As long as we are

living, there is always hope.

Reference:

Bautista, M. C. R. B., Bernardo, A.B.I., and Ocampo, D. When Reforms Don’t Transform:
Reflections on Institutional Reforms in the Department of Education. Human
Development Network (HDN) Discussion Paper Series, PHDR Issue 2008/2009, No. 2.