I want to understand

by Maya Baltazar Herrera

On Oct. 5, World Teacher’s Day, the Department of Education is expected to formally announce its proposed one-year kindergarten (the K in K plus 12) and 12-year
basic education plan. It is a plan that has drawn considerable and well-deserved attention. At stake is an estimated five-year implementation budget of P100 billion and
the future of millions of Filipinos, especially the 20 million students currently in the public basic education system.

The proposal, based on Aquino’s campaign promise (Promise 21) is to “go from our current 10 years (six in elementary and four in high school) to a K-12 system in
five years starting SY 2011-12.” Aquino’s word-for-word promise: “I will expand the basic education cycle in this country from a short 10-year cycle to a globally-
comparable 12 years before the end of the next administration (2016).”

In order for us to understand whether this makes sense, we must answer at least four questions. What is the purpose of basic education? What are the most important
areas of improvement in the current system? How does the proposed solution address these? Does the proposed solution prioritize properly given the time and resources
available?

But before we go through the scientific process, let’s examine the rhetoric.

Rhetoric

Implicit in the wording of Promise 21, and much of the rhetoric around the national debate, is that achieving 12 years of education will make the local educational
system “world-class.” In fact, Education Secretary Luistro has been reported as saying that this would make the “country’s education cycle ... at par with the world’s
standard.”

This leads one to believe two things: first, that there is an internationally defined standard and that is 12 years of education, and second, that the length of the education
cycle is the primary determinant of quality.

Mike Luz, former Undersecretary of Education and education adviser to Aquino is privately and publicly passionate about the topic. In a June interview with ANC’s
Headstart, Luz waxes eloquent “If the rest of the world, which has done much better than the Philippines, has gone to 12 years or more, I don’t understand how we can
think we’re smarter.” “We’re not proposing something different, we’re proposing to catch up with the rest of the world. It’s a quality thing.”

He says that the problem is really about quality and that the Philippines is only one of two nations in the world with a six-year primary and four-year secondary cycle.

For his part, Luistro has explained that the purpose of the reforms is to ensure that high school graduates are ready to be productively employed even without
completing college. To his credit, Luistro has been extremely careful about explaining that any changes must be based on a review and simplification of the current
curriculum.

Winnowing

Before we attempt to evaluate, we must first separate the relevant from the irrelevant, the logical from the merely rhetorical.

Is the Philippines one of only two countries in the world with a 10-year education cycle? Perhaps. Are we one of only two with a six-year grade school and a four-year
high school? Possibly.

The Unesco data showed that over half of the over 200 countries with data have a primary plus secondary cycle of 12 years. Less than 10 countries had systems that
allow students to enter tertiary education with only 10 years of schooling. Other countries had cycles from 11 to 14 years.

Does that mean 12 years means quality? If longer truly meant better, then the almost 200 countries that have more than 10 years of pre-tertiary education must be doing
better than we are. Unfortunately, that’s not true. What that means is that merely increasing the number of years in the education cycle won’t lead to better quality
education.

Gleaning

Now let’s examine the proposed solution. My personal alarm bells began to ring when I realized that the structure of seven years of grade school and five years of high
school (7 plus 5) had been articulated before the curriculum review and the expected curriculum change. That this single 7 plus 5 system is expected to deliver both
college-readiness as well as immediate employability (with vague references to vocations) only increased my discomfort.

Does information from international experience help us understand? While proponents are quick to point to statistics to support the prevalence of the 12-year duration,
no one seems prepared to claim that 7 plus 5 is a standard structure in any of the major countries we would tend to use as a benchmark for education.

The US system has five years of elementary school, three years of middle school and four years of high school. The UK system has six years of primary school and four
years of secondary school, with some secondary schools having two years of sixth form. The Singapore system has six years of primary school and four years of
secondary school. The Hong Kong system used to have six years of primary school and seven years of secondary school. HK has recently decreased secondary school
duration to six years, clearly indicating that longer is not always better.

Reality check
Expert evaluation of our ability to achieve MDG 3, universal primary education, by 2015 is low across all of the indicators. From 1990 to 2005, we had regressed on
two of the four metrics (net enrolment and literacy), were flat on one (proportion of grade 1 starters reaching grade 6) and improved only on one (63 percent to 68
percent on primary completion rate). The Philippines ranked in the lowest 10 percent of participating countries for grades 4 and 8 in the 2003 TIMMS, a gauge of
learning achievement in math and science. The mean percentage score on the National Achievement Test was 65 percent (75 percent passing) in 2008.

Clearly, there is a quality problem and it begins very early. Experts have called the public education system weakly governed, under-resourced and over-extended.

Of course, the full plan is yet to be unveiled. However, there are already some rather easy questions we can ask. If time is the true challenge, why can’t we begin by
increasing the number of class hours per day? Public school students spend only between four to five hours a day in school, versus the seven to nine of private school
students. How is Singapore able to deliver quality within the same six plus four system? If there are two goals, why can’t we articulate two systems? If we need to live
with the current resource constraints, why can’t we offer flexibility within the four-year system? Even if we eventually move to a 12-year system, why do we have to
keep the two-cycle structure? If we expect to simplify the curriculum, why do we expect to increase years? Shouldn’t purpose (curriculum) come before structure?

Secretary Luistro, please help me understand.

Extended Education Not a Panacea

by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera

Promising every Filipino access to education is a standard election promise that all candidates mouth off during the campaign. It is not surprising that educational
reforms have become standard messages in the on-going presidential debates. Manny Villar wants to expand access to higher education, Dick Gordon promises to
increase the monthly salary of teachers to P40,000, Noynoy Aquino wants quality textbooks, and Eddie Villanueva calls for an educational system anchored on moral
standards.

What is surprising is that some candidates, perhaps in an attempt to put one better than their opponents, have started to promise the moon to the Filipino voters.

One such example is Noynoy Aquino’s proposal in the recent COCPEA presidential forum to add two more years to the education system purportedly to bring the
country to global standards, increase the employability of graduates, and make our manpower internationally competitive.

Increasing the number of years in the educational system is not a new idea. Over the past four decades, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education
(1970), Presidential Commission on Education Reform (1999), and the Presidential Task Force on Education (2008) have proposed the extension of the basic education
cycle to improve the content and relevance of basic education and make it internationally competitive.

But what is surprising is that Noynoy Aquino has proposed adding not just one but two additional years of education to every Filipino effectively converting us from a
K-10 (kindergarten + 6 elementary + 4 high school) to a K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12) system.

Supporters of this proposal argue that the Philippines is the only Asian country with a 10-year basic education system. Others say students who stay in school longer
perform better in international science and math achievement tests; that a long education cycle better prepares students for higher education and the job market, and
higher levels of education attainment is strongly correlated to higher wages.

But is increasing the number of years in the school system the best educational reform for a poor country suffering from a continuing fiscal deficit? And are we not
better off using our scarce resources to address existing educational problems and programs?

In fact, there are many existing education initiatives, such as early childhood education and the high school bridge program, that have not been fully implemented for
lack of funding support. R.A. 8980 or the Early Childhood Care and Development Act of 2000 makes pre-school a prerequisite for enrolling in Grade 1 thus making
pre-school education a government responsibility. Current Department of Education (DepEd) data shows that only half of children age 5 are in preschool and some
P1.8B is needed to maintain the program at current levels.

The recent congressional hearings on the DepEd budget also showed that we need to build 66,881 classrooms (costing some P43B) and hire 64,060 teachers (based on
1:1 teacher-classroom ratio) just to accommodate our current school population.

And the Philippines, by its own admission, is already lagging behind in its Millennium Development Goal commitment of achieving universal primary education by
2015. The DepEd needs more than P15B annually just to find and bring all school-age children to school and keep them there.

Which brings me to my previous questions – how much money will be needed to add two years to the current education cycle and how does Noynoy Aquino propose to
produce this amount given his promise not to raise taxes if elected president? (He has flip-flopped on this position). Remember that he has also promised universal
preschool, one million GATSPE scholarships, and technical-vocation education in high schools.

There were no estimates given by Aquino in his speech, in his webpage, via his political supporters, or by his education experts. His quoted media response is to
increase GDP by 2% and reclaim P280B from corruption to fund educational reform.

I find this posture fiscally irresponsible and politically pandering. It is also not clear how adding two years to the school system will make us globally competitive.

Even if we assume that the funding required can somehow be magically produced, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money to wipe out the classroom shortage, ensure
that all 5 year old children are in preschool, fulfill our international commitment to achieve universal primary education, do school feeding programs, hire additional
teachers, or reduce classroom size to improve student-to-teacher ratio and elevate student performance and achievement?

Perhaps the Ateneo-schooled presidential bet should spend a day at the Batasan Elementary School located just a few meters from his old House of Representatives
office and experience first hand how more than 50 public school students are crammed in a classroom during the third shift at 7 o’clock in the evening. Then maybe he
will realize that adding two more years to a public school student’s life is not the answer to making him internationally competitive, helping him find a decent job, or
making his daily school experience bearable.