On the K+12 program

WILL two more years added to basic education equip high school students with skills to enter the world of work and or pursue a college degree?

I have attended the focus group discussion (FGD) on the proposed additional years in basic education otherwise known as the K + 12 program on September 28, 2010 at the Bulwagan ng Karunungan, DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.

The focus group discussion was intended to convey the objectives and benefits of the K + 12 program; surface issues and concerns; elicit opinions; and generate suggestions on best model possible institutional arrangement to facilitate implementation.

Dr. Isagani Cruz, consultant to DepEd, discussed the rationale, objectives and benefits of the K + 12 program. He presented the evolution of several models from the liberal party, business sector and education sector particularly from the CHED’s Technical Panel for General Education (where he sits as Chairman).

This was followed by an open forum facilitated by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP). Father Bienvenido Nebres, president of Ateneo de Manila University commented that the goals and purposes of K + 12 are laudable but he opined that the models presented may not be the answer to the problems of basic education. He pointed out that the models presented are too complicated and that instead of focusing on the resolution of the present problems, these models may even add to existing issues. Father Nebres suggested to focus first on the solution of so many school leavers or drop-outs (of 100 pupils that entered Grade 1 only 64 finished Grade 6 and of the 58 that enrolled in First year high school only 43 finished. Of the 23 that enrolled in college, only 14 finished college). He also cited that basic education at present is suffering from of lack competent and qualified teachers. How much more if we add two years? He suggested present and incoming teachers must be thoroughly trained. Lack of classrooms, chairs and ventilation, lighting and other physical features are other issues that must be immediately addressed.

Former Sen. Nikki Coseteng now a school administrator questioned the capability of DepEd to implement these new curriculum considering the various problems besetting basic education. She suggested that these problems be addressed first before adding two more years to basic education. There were other comments from other government agencies, parents, representatives of private and public schools, NGOs and media representatives. Majority of the concerns involved additional financial burden and assurance of quality among the prospective graduates.

This open forum was followed by grouping of the different sectors in attendance. There were four groups identified. As representative of CHED and joined the group of Tesda, private schools, colleges and universities. In this sectoral group discussion, I gave the following comments:

1. The K + 12 presented must have been the collaborative effort of the Department of Basic Education (DepEd), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). It must be a product of the cooperative and coordinated efforts of the three agencies involve in education for they are all parts of the Philippine education system. One cannot just do its part without affecting the other two. It could have been better if the framework considered two pathways after basic education. The polytechnic/technical stream leading to the world of work (Tesda’s concern) and the university stream leading to finishing a baccalaureate degree. (CHED’s concern)

2. The second suggestion I gave refers to the current initiative of CHED to revisit the first two years of the General Education curriculum and is also being looked into now by the Technical Panel for General Education. The point is for these two years to be studied and revisited to either be called as Senior High School program or pre-baccalaureate program so that there will be no dislocation of faculty and no enrolment gap in college. The faculty members of present colleges and universities may be tapped (if this two years become senior high school) under the same scheme as Educational Service Contracting of DepEd.

3. The same Educational Service Contracting arrangement can be made with Tesda and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) so that High School (junior and senior as the case maybe) students who are interested to work are trained and equipped with knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable them to pass the skills and certification test (NC1, NC2, NC3, etc.) conducted by Tesda. Those who are employed may opt to continue after years of working and reenter the academic program and avail of the transfer credits (under a Credit Transfer System) through Expanded Tertiary Education and Equivalency Program (ETEEAP) of CHED. This program recognizes and gives credit to prior learning.

4. We live in a world of continuing geographical sectoral and technological changes. Information and Communication Technology must be harnessed for the good of both in-school and off-school Filipinos.

This must be the top priority of the present leadership. The government must take care of the Filipino youth regardless of their social status. With the high trust rating of President Benigno Simeon Aquino 3rd, he can make a big difference in the lives of all Filipinos particularly those who almost have nothing in life. From the words of his late father Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. “The Filipinos is worth dying for.” President Noynoy Aquino can now say the Filipinos is worth serving and living for. After all isn’t it that his favorite line is “Kayo ang boss ko.” Give them equal opportunities and access to good education, This is enshrined in our Constitution. Let’s give meaning to our national hero’s proverbial statement who even at this modern times is still elusive “The Filipino youth is the hope of our beloved Philippines.” –Felizardo Y. Francisco, Manila Times

dirfyf@yahoo.com