K-12: Go or gone?

Rhona Canoy

Part Two

MAJOR disclaimer reiterated: All ideas, opinions, barbed remarks that appear in this article are mine and mine alone, culled from what I understand of information disseminated by the Department of Education through not-so-well-written memoranda, seminars, one-sided discussions, workshops, and confusing fora.

So… For those of you who read my previous column, this is Side B of the record. For those who haven’t, read it anyway.

It is interesting to me that we Filipinos, inherently intelligent and curious, have not paid enough attention and critical thought to the K-12 program. When the concept was first introduced, there were many references to Asean integration but not enough explanation. So let me try… roughly and simply.

Part of the Asean agreement included the implementation of a K-12 school program. I don’t think that our government was as interested in developing our educational system as it was in the other parts of the package. Asean integration means opening the doors between member countries to allow among other things free trade and open access to employment (no visas, no placement agencies). This is the prize plum that our government set their eyes on. Not the preparation of our youth to enter a global market, not to be sure that they are educationally prepared.

So this means what? That any proposed school program, as long as it is justifiable in the eyes and hands of the powers that be, can be deemed acceptable. Lawmakers called it the “Enhanced Basic Education Act” (emphasis mine). Google it. And Google the Asean Integration Agreement while you’re at it.

To add two years to the then-existing system thereby increasing the required number of study years to get a high school diploma is not enhancement.

To introduce a curriculum and syllabus which is confusing to the parents, students, and most of all to the schools (both public and private) which are the main service providers is not enhancement. Lack of proper study and support regarding the impact of cost of this undertaking to families is not enhancement.

To create two separate and distinct paths towards a high school diploma is not enhancement. Adding a technical-vocational curriculum, albeit admirable and beneficial to students who need immediate employment after high school graduation, is not enhancement. Depriving the tech-voc HS graduates of the opportunity to immediately continue on to college because of the lack of academic credits is not enhancement. Basically, creating inequality in the value of high school diplomas and opportunities after basic education is not enhancement.

To have a school system be designed by people whose only clear idea is to comply with the expectations and orders of the higher powers is not enhancement. Insufficient consultation with teachers, school administrators, parents is not enhancement.

So for school year 2016-17, we are faced with thousands of students and schools who are beginning a new part of basic education, both of whom are unprepared and truly lack the proper and desperately needed support from the Department of Education, who themselves are just as confused and unprepared.

Which begs the question: how globally competitive do we really expect these students to be after graduating from high school (if they even do)?

And therein, my dear reader, lies the rub.