K-12: Go or gone?

Rhona Canoy

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

So… an interested reader of my inaugural column challenged me to opine about the controversial K-12 program. I doubt that everything I have to say about it will fit in the column space granted me by GSD, so perchance this discussion will be a two- or three-parter. And now, let us begin.

When the DepEd first announced its intention to implement the K-12 program a few years ago, it caused quite a furor, an uproar even. Voices, mostly from the parent and student sector, did not hesitate to express their displeasure in spite of a lack of understanding of the program and its purpose. Even DepEd, the major implementing arm of this “mugna” seemed at a loss.

It is true that we are among a meager few left in the world with a ten-year basic education program, most of these countries being truly underdeveloped (you can’t even attempt to call them developing) mostly in Africa. All other countries, most especially the very developed superpowers, have long been following a K-12 structure.

Personally, I have looked forward to it for years. As a matter of fact, when our little school was born in 1994, we were espousing the program but met with similar protests. Let me explain why we should be glad about it. Education as perceived by many is centered on literacy and the degree of literacy which enables the learner to reach the highest academic rungs. Many believe that since they are successful products of the ten-year program, it is sufficient.

No, it’s not. This archaic program was designed for a time long left behind. The amount and kind of learning needed today cannot be mastered within a span of 10 years. More important than that, however, is the developmental and psychological aspect of learning. Science and research have shown long ago that at 15 or 16, the average age of our previous high school graduates, the child is not mature enough to handle the stress and the expectations of having to be a contributing part of society.

Yes, it is true that we have had high school graduates who had no choice but to enter the work force due to necessity. That cannot be denied vis-à-vis our economic situation. But these children (because in truth that’s what they are) are generally doomed to a lifetime of low-paying menial jobs because of their unpreparedness, both academically and developmentally.

The K-12 program is designed to meet those deficiencies. The additional (and in my view necessary) two years will definitely add to these young people’s knowledge bank. It will also allow special skills training which would be difficult if they were any younger. And, best of all, it will allow them to reach the level of developmental maturity needed for them to meet the demands of the workplace.

That would be the situation in an ideal and close-to-perfect world. But here’s the but. The present set-up as designed by the all-knowing brains of God-knows-where does not seem to aim at improving and strengthening our educational system. Nor does it appear to provide an advantage for our young people. The thrust, since the agenda took off, has been on employment.

“With the K-12 program, our youth will be able to enter the work force after graduating from high school.” But the current design, including educational content and structure, is obviously born of confusion and the pressing order to kick off the program by 2016.

And therein, my dear reader, lies the rub.