K+12 program: a business-minded shift in education system

Malacañan Palace declared that by October 5 this year, the Department of Education is going to be laying out its plan to remodel the current basic education system and adopt the so-called “K+12 Program” or “Kindergarten plus Twelve-year Basic Education,” thereby adding two more years of study particularly in the high school level before the students be eligible to enroll in undergraduate studies. The K-12 Program is not a novel education scheme, the United States, Canada, Australia and several others have already been using this. The declaration received a wide array of criticisms and parents or even teachers are quite skeptical with the idea.

It must be remembered that this program was one of the flagships of the P-Noy Campaign. Aquino had advocated the addition of two more years to basic education to keep up with global standards, to make even high school graduates employable, and to enable students to have more time to choose which careers best suit their abilities, among other reasons. The current administration believes that it would somehow answer the problem of degrading quality of our basic education. By adding two more years in high school, the student is expected to gain more knowledge that will prepare him in pursuing further studies, or he may already be eligible to find a career in public or private service and/or compete with other jobseekers worldwide.

This could be a very ambitious and bold step for the government. And with the current setup and resources of most of our schools, the country is not just there yet. The UNESCO has surveyed in 2008 the following education index for the Philippines:

Teacher to student ratio                            1:35

Enrollment rate, primary level                      92%

Enrolment rate, secondary                         52.6%

Enrolment, tertiary                                   28.8%

Completion rate, primary                            97%

Schools connected to the internet                2%

Education spending 

       (%of total gov’t. expenditure)            17.8%

The teacher to student ratio is quite impressive, however, we still cannot discount the fact that this is a national figure, and we cannot overlook the disparity of enrolment in NCR, or in Luzon, or in some part of Mindanao, or in urban areas compared to rural places. Batanes, for example, posted a notable 1:11 rate—the most remarkable teacher –pupil ratio in elementary schools for SY 2009-2010, whereas in Basilan the number was 1:64—the lowest teacher-pupil ratio in the country.  

Other figures show that 92 % of children eligible to enter elementary education are enrolled but only 97% of them graduates from primary education. And of this 97% of elementary graduates, only 52.6% are pursuing secondary education. More than half of them decide to stop going to school due to a number of factors which are mostly economic. And the sad part of the story was that, only 17.8% of the total government spending is allotted to education, most of it goes to military, infrastructure, and debt service.

With the introduction of K-12 sans the provision of additional resources to schools, the enrolment rate in secondary and tertiary education is anticipated to descend a little more. None completion of studies, all of us know and as research shows, sadly results to a very low employment prospect for an individual.

Philippine classrooms are usually crowded.

Parents are suspicious. Teachers are wary. Of course! Is there a reason not to be? Adding two more years to basic education means adding two more years of burden to them, especially with respect to finances. Senator Ed Angara, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education, argued, "Essentially this is basic education, and this is free.” He likewise defended the plan, saying that it wasn't "anti-poor." "In the end, it's going to help the poor because the poor gets its fighting chance in quality education. The worst thing to do to the poor is to deprive them of health and education," he added.

But is this really free? Yes, if we speak of tuition fees. But does going to school concern only tuition fees? No. There are a lot more pressing burdens that one student faces. Uniforms, daily “baon,” school materials, transportation costs, voluntary contributions, miscellaneous fees, and other incidental expenses.  Two years! Two years more before you can actually get yourself going.  Two years more before you can start looking for a job, before you can decide whether to pursue further studies or be employed, two years before you can actually help your parents provide for the daily bread.

A typical classroom sight in urban areas.

Quality education is not just obtained by lengthening your stay in school, or should I say, the more time you spend in campus does not always result to better learning. I have a few schoolmates then who completed their undergraduate programs for about 8 to 9 years, but that did not make them any different, or maybe exceptional, from those who made them within the regular four years, neither did the extra time spent in school     made them relatively employable than the others. One thing is sure, however, quality sometimes, but not always, results from quantity. Yes, the number of years in school maybe a factor here, but what we need to pay more attention to is the provision of the most basic things a school should have. The more classrooms, teachers, teaching materials or books, you provide, the greater the chance of students to learn more. In other words, the government should rather be concerned on providing the most basic necessities that pupils, teachers, or schools need than in imposing additional burden to parents and students. 

This is how a classroom in one part of Mindanao looks. The government should focus more on making the venue for learning a little more conducive.

On the lighter side, I do not wish to undermine the wisdom of the Aquino administration. They may be right, but they could always be wrong. I just wonder how the additional years are going to be. Would it be just additional ordinary academic curriculum or is it going to be some kind of technical-vocational stuff? I would absolutely buy the idea if the additional years of study would be of tech-voc nature, where graduates are to be given certificates of completion or mastery of the field of tech-voc specializations they should opt to pursue. Surely, this will help the graduate be globally competitive. College education won’t anymore be a necessity for many, because high school graduates would now be equipped with necessary skills and training that make them naturally attractive to employers worldwide. And before this tech-voc curriculum can be realized, the government should first consider filling the classrooms with the necessary materials, equipments and personnel complement. But certainly, this would result to a greater shift in budget priorities for the government as a whole.

On the other hand, if this won't be the case (the tech-voc scheme), no way can a high school grad compete with other job seekers, even locally. The Civil Service Commission may lower the qualification standards for some government positions, thus leveling a little bit the playing field for both HS and college grads. However, the selection process, whether in public service or private, never accepts the least qualified from among the list of qualified candidates for the job. It is absurd to say that you, as employer for instance, would choose a high school graduate to be your accounting clerk over a graduate of BS Accountancy. It is not enough, and it won't be enough that HS grad under the K+12 program is equipped with the necessary qualifications in order to compete globally, for placement agencies almost always look for higher credentials. Ordinary college grads cannot even land a descent job, more so that a possible K+12 HS grad could, in this case.

It may be argued that, with the K+12 program, the student is never discouraged to pursue further studies. That's definitely right. But the problem is still there, K+12 adds up to current financial weight carried by Filipino families. Two years more in school equals to two years less in employment chances. And, with the K+12, can the government guarantee that our people won't anymore be regarded as second-class graduates outside the country, especially in the US? No.

So, why the government has to rush this up? Let me touch the most interesting part of the story behind this program. Apparently, with the current Secretary of Education steering it all, the move does not always come without a buzz. Bro. Armin Luistro, DepEd Secretary, it must be noted, is the former school director of De LaSalle University—one of the most expensive private schools in the country. After the Aquino term, he is always expected to return to LaSalle campus as its administrator. And he is the one who is making a stir in the project, creating some kind of a cloud on the purity of the intention of the government to alleviate educational standards.

Ostensibly, private schools are not much that fee-regulated, not like that of state-operated academies, so that they could impose matriculation fees as high as they want to. However, competition amongst them is getting stiffer. More so, state schools are getting excellent accreditation ratings thereby attracting more enrollees than the privates. This means that the private school business is getting tough. School owners cannot just maximize their profits by imposing higher tuition fees—or else students would suddenly jump “over the bakod” to public schools, nevertheless, they can always dig up for more by lengthening a student’s stay in the campus, but not while the other schools are offering shorter school year-terms. So, why not nationalize the lengthening of the curriculum? This way, when all of the schools, public or private, follow the same system—the longer one, of course, no one will ever care jumping to another campus, when what you get from where you left off, is what you can also get from other target campuses. Nice move, right?

Private schools have already succeeded in maximizing profits in tertiary education. Now, they are trying to impose the same adventurism to lower levels of learning. Haven’t you noticed why most of private institutes, nowadays, are offering trimester school-year terms? Why not? If you’ve noticed, this does not make the length of degree completion any shorter. A four-year degree would still be a four-year degree, for the number of hours allotted for each course, as set by the Commission on Higher Education, cannot be prejudiced. Increasing the number of terms per school year, does not increase the level of knowledge a student obtains in school. It increases, however, the amount of expenses a parent spent for his student. Tuition fees may not be of great concern, but in collection of miscellaneous fees is where the schools are taxing the students and their parents.

Yes. Private school business is a very good business, profitable that is, and better when profits are especially commissioned by the government.

_________________________
Read more... Adding Years or Tears?