Only 3 years left to reach UN Millennium Dev’t Goal 2015

(Part I)

What brought about the declaration of the UN Millennium Development Goals? In 1990 at Jomtien, Thailand, UNESCO launched Education for All (EFA) global program to eradicate illiteracy, the major cause of poverty in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. By 2000, the decade after, UNESCO DG Matsuura had the EFA global efforts evaluated at Dakar, Africa. Although enrollment increased, education remained substandard. Matsuura called for an EFA-DAKAR Framework of Action for Quality Education. Funded partially by UNESCO, the EFA-DAKAR Pilot for Quality Basic Education in the public school of Pulung Bulo Elementary School, Angeles Pampanga was started.

21st Century Education –

‘The treasure within’

UNESCO launched the 21st Century Education and its four Pillars: Learning to Be, Learning to Learn, Learning to Work and Learning to Live in Harmony with Others. This was the result of the teamwork of French Finance Minister Delors and 12 education experts from around the world, who put together their vision of the new millennium education for UNESCO in the book “The Treasures Within” without being aware that the four pillars matched the four stages of human development Dr. Maria Montessori discovered in 1905. By 1946 when UNESCO was established she became part of the Italian delegation. UNESCO credited her initiative in introducing adult literacy and Early Childhood Education into its new agenda. This is recorded in the UNESCO Paris archives.

To further resolve the global problems of mankind, UN Secretary General Kofi Anan declared the UN Millennium Development Goal (UNMDG 2000-2015) for all member states, including the Philippines. With the sponsorship of Japan, UNESCO DG Matsuura was tasked to announce the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD 2005-2014) to make projects financially self-sustainable instead of being dependent on grants or dole-out which often resulted in the failure to complete the projects.

Getting acquainted with educational system of 8 SEA countries

During the 25 years I have been a UNESCO commissioner, the last ten years, 2000 to 2010 was the most intensive. Then I became Secretary General of the UNESCO National Commission with its 42 commissioners, experts in Education, Culture, Communication, Social and Human Science, Science and Technology. They made up five committees including the sub-committee of Marine Science. Between 2005 and 2009, I worked closely with my two commissioners, Dr. Nona Ricafort and Dr. Ethel Agnes Valenzuela of CHED. Both accompanied me in my visits to the eight Southeast Asian countries to develop rapport with the UNESCO Secretary Generals and Ministers of Education of SEA countries of Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam and Timor L’Este to seek their acceptance of the Philippines as the SEA Center for Lifelong Learning for Sustainable Development, as a Category 2 Center.

This involved exchange visits of the SEA UNESCO Secretary Generals or their deputies and Education Ministry directors of ECE, Community Literacy outreach, Vocational Education and Teacher Training to the Philippines to observe our credibility in various aspects of education to merit their acceptance and recognition. During these years major conferences were held like the UNESCO Quadrennial meeting of ASEAN countries and UNESCO field officers, which UNESCO Philippines hosted. This was followed by SEAMEO-INNOTECH Seminar Workshop on Financial Schemes of SEA countries for Education for Sustainable Development. Japan reinforced this with the APEID (Asia Pacific Education Innovation Development) Conference in the research center in NEIR, Tokyo to inject innovatively ESD into all levels of education. UNESCO Paris monitored the exchange visits through Derek Elias of the UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok. Finally in the 2008 Paris General Conference, our SEACLLSD was approved by Director General Matsuura with the 190 member states in the General Conference.

Comparing the pursuit of 21st century education between SEA countries and the Philippines with focus on the K to 12 program

Last year 2011, Dr. Ethel Agnes Valenzuela, the senior specialist and current Research Director of SEAMEO-INNOTECH was commissioned by DepEd Secretary Armin Luistro to do a comparative study of the K to 12 Education in Southeast Asia. She studied the structure, content, organization and adequacy of Basic Education in Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Singapore as benchmarks against the Philippines. All benchmarked countries have long-term educational development plans geared towards achieving 21st century competence, while the end-goal of Philippine education is to achieve functional literacy for all.

Secretary Luistro sees the reality that the Philippines is far behind in achieving the 21st century education internationally and locally. Following the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) he is putting all efforts to reconstruct our ten-year program by adding two more years of upper secondary education.

In terms of the levels in education, only Brunei Darussalam has made preschool education compulsory for children aged 5 to 6, considered their first stage of primary education. All the benchmarked countries start elementary education at age 6/7 and end at 12/13 with two phases, Grades 1-4 and Grades 5-6 like the Philippines. On the other hand, secondary education in these benchmarked countries is categorized into two levels: lower (4 years) and upper secondary (2 years). Differentiated streams leading to specialized programs in science and math, sports, arts, gifted and even special education are offered to match the skills, talents and interests of the students.

In the Philippines, these are offered only as electives in selected schools. It is also notable that the Philippines allots a disproportionately long time in teaching academic subjects (math, science, social studies) in both elementary and secondary levels than the other countries with limited options for specialization or mastery in a particular subject.

Recommendation: Anchor Philippine education goals to the 21st century education

Given the findings, Dr. Valenzuela suggests some strategies for policymakers to improve Philippine Basic Education. The first task would be to anchor the Philippine educational goals on the development of 21st century competencies. This involves streamlining the content of compulsory subjects, which are overcrowded and too technical in content to provide for more mastery of key skills, knowledge and content. A “spiral” progressive curriculum (one that integrates content across different subjects) should be promoted in the elementary and secondary levels thereby strengthening the link between the two.

The cycle of secondary education should also be extended to enhance the student’s abilities and competencies. Then an end-of-cycle NAT assessment may also be devised to assess the academic qualifications of the fourth year high school students to determine pathways for employment or higher studies. Finally, the upper secondary or Year 11 and 12 should not follow a one-size-fits-all program. The last two years of K to 12 should lead to one of three tracks. Track one leads to taking career-oriented elective subjects (bookkeeping, travel, animation, etc.), track two leads to specialized career-oriented technical or vocational certification, and track three leads to the integration of the general education subjects in college or a pre-baccalaureate course or program for higher education.

Half a century of perpetual planning of Philippine education and still trying to catch up

Yearly, the UN issues the UN Country Report for each member state. Since 2005, ten years short of the UNMDG 2015, the Philippine Country Report has warned that we are not likely to achieve two major goals: universal access to quality primary education and the decrease of maternal and infant mortality rate.

Dr. Ramon Bacani, Philippine EFA National Coordinator, alerted the government in the 2000 report “The Vulnerability of EFA in the Philippines,” noting that “dropouts continue to increase, while school achievement levels remain slow,” since the school system is neither strong nor attractive enough to make the students stay. All these results can also be traced back to the country’s problem on poverty. It requires concerted effort among government agencies that would address livelihood, health and capacity building problems of the citizens.

In his report, Dr. Bacani states that, “the DepEd had been focused on its mainstream internal programs that it had sidelined the EFA-dedicated entities,” which means that instead of pursuing quality in education the DepEd was more concerned with quantity, such as supplying schools furniture and textbooks with poor curriculum contents. Thus, he urges the DepEd “to look beyond the realms of the educational system; strengthen its bonds with its present and potential partners and employ more non-traditional means of ensuring the children’s stay in school.” –Preciosa S. Soliven (The Philippine Star)

(Part II- 4 Decades of innovating the OB Montessori K to 12 curriculum)