In principle, K+12 should be the right solution to concerns about the deteriorating quality of learning that our graduates currently experience. This drop in quality standard is reflected in the results of the national achievement test as well as in rankings in international tests.
K+12, components of which have been set in motion this year, brings to 13 from 10 the number of years that a student will spend before being allowed to take any college entrance test. It also puts a child through institutional learning at an earlier age.
The K in the K+12 formula is, yes, kindergarten. Whereas compulsory public education had been only for grade school and high school levels, the education department is now imposing universal kindergarten for children aged 5.
The number 12 needs to be broken down to 6+4+2. Thus, six years are given for elementary schooling (Grades 1 to 6), four for junior high school (Grades 7-10), and two for senior high school (Grades 11 and 12). The new system starts in the next academic year for grade one and junior high.
Senior high school will be introduced in the education calendar of 2016-2017. After two years, at the close of school year 2018-2019, only those who had graduated the additional two years of secondary education will be eligible for learning in colleges or universities.
Universal kindergarten and senior high school are the new concepts in our revamped curriculum. The former is based on findings that pre-school learning has significant positive impact on cognitive and language assessment scores on a child.
The additional two “finishing” years of high school, on the other hand, will help students to specialize in fields such as science and technology, music and arts, agriculture and fisheries, sports, business and entrepreneurship, etc.
The underpinning objective here is to empower graduates to be able to take up a job or start a business upon graduation from secondary schooling without necessarily needing to go into more years of formal education.
While the objectives of K+12 are laudable, the whole scheme reflects a lopsided view of the other equally pressing problems in the country’s education system. This is like looking at the individual trees rather than considering the forest.
A major problem, for starters, is the quality of education that comes from having teachers that are not adequately trained and suffering from low salaries.
The education department has started universal kindergarten this year but will be utilizing temporary teachers to supervise the youngsters in the specified three hours of schooling. And because these teaching staff are not in the regular payroll, they will be getting only P6,000 a month.
We’re not even tackling the issue of having additional classrooms, books, and teaching aids that will provide the right impetus and learning support for the estimated 2.5 million children who had enrolled in universal kindergarten this year.
What do you think can we expect from this set-up?
This is clearly a disappointing way to start the K+12 program. For sure, kindergarten graduates of this academic year will not receive the optimum benefit of the early learning. If it’s any consolation, at least the children been herded into classrooms instead of having to waste time at home.
Sub-standard teaching qualities have to be addressed immediately if we want to derive any benefits from K+12. This goes without saying that salaries have to be increased to give back to teachers the dignity of teaching – and not treating the profession as a means of simply earning money.
The other problem besetting the education system has to do with the students’ home environment. With majority of the population living on a hand-to-mouth existence, education is a burden that all parents resolve to carry through to the end, but where many eventually fail. This is reflected in the high drop-out rates from Grade 1 to high school.
Through the existence of a conditional cash transfer program the current administration is trying to assist poor families augment their household expenses, and hopefully also help in keeping their children in school.
But this dole-out mechanism is something that cannot be sustained by government for long periods, not just because there is funding source limitation, but also because long-term dole outs are demeaning to people’s dignity. A longer term solution is needed to address poverty. But that is another story.
More dropouts most likely
Extending the number of school years without minding the problems of parents associated with supporting their children through school would lead to higher levels of dropouts. This is like taking the car on a longer journey but not increasing the amount of fuel in the tank.
Parents of children in public elementary may be able to avoid giving transportation allowance because there is almost one school in a barangay within walking distance. But this is not the case for public high schools where everyday transportation stipends add up to a considerable sum especially if the school is a considerable distance away.
Even if the two additional years of senior high school were “free,” if there are no students who will take advantage of this, then the country would still have junior high school graduates who technically are still not ready to take on jobs and be productive citizens of the state.
More years does not equal quality
With K+12, the Philippines may be at par with other countries in the region in terms of the number of years in its basic education cycle. Yet this doesn’t mean Filipino graduates would be better considering its current teaching quality level. In fact, Singapore has only 11 years of basic education, yet the quality of their graduates are not questioned.
Too bad that K+12 has already been set in motion. I would have preferred the additional budget allocated to this ambitious but premature program set aside for better teaching – more teachers, better-paid, improved teaching skills.
We could even have shown the world that Filipinos, even with just 10 years of learning, can be better than all others.
