A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program 2nd De La Salle University (DLSU) International Education Congress

De La Salle-College of St. Benilde Hotel, Manila September 29-October 1, 2011 A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Name of Presenter: David Michael M. San Juan Institutional Affiliation: Filipino Department, De La Salle University-Manila Keywords: Curriculum Development, Educational theory, Higher Education and Adult Learning Abstract The Philippine Department of Education started implementing the governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program by establishing a system of compulsory and free kindergarten education nationwide. Citing the educational improvement of advanced countries such as the Netherlands, advocates of K to 12 claim that this is the only way to make Filipino students globally competitive. Big business organizations such as the Philippine Business for Education (PBED) consortium, Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines and many more support the K to 12 program. Meanwhile, two of the largest umbrella organizations of teachers in the country, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) and the Teachers Dignity Coalition (TDC), at least two Upper House legislators, namely Senators Tito Sotto and Antonio Trillanes oppose it, along with a number of local executives. This paper will analyze the bones of contention in this much-touted government education plan as a springboard for crafting a workable compromise plan.

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Education is the wealth of nations. Many top ranking countries in the 2010 Human Development Index (HDI) a measuring tool of holistic human development (which covers literacy rate) crafted by the United Nations such as Norway, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands are known for excellence in education. The Philippines is ranked 99th in the 2010 HDI (among 169 countries), way below socialist Cuba (ranked 53rd) and slightly below its former twin tiger cub Thailand (ranked 92nd). In 2000, the Philippines was ranked 77th, and in 1990, placed at 66th. Such measurable decline of the quality of life in the Philippines relative to the quality of life in other countries mirrors the common perception that Philippine education is (or has become) substandard. Some recent indicators seem to suggest that the overall quality of Philippine education at all levels is indeed at least subpar, as far as national standards are concerned, or at worse, deteriorating, within the purview of international standards. Former Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Jesli Lapus revealed that the results of the 2009 National Achievement Test (NAT) improved versus the 2006 outcomes in terms of Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from 54.66% to 66.33%. He claimed that percentage gains were achieved in all subject areas, comparing 2006 and 2009 results. Unfortunately, it must be emphasized that 75% is the minimum level of mastery (the passing mark) set by DepEd. Thus, recent NAT results imply that the average Filipino elementary and high school student is unable to gain mastery of the required lessons. To illustrate this assertion, it is helpful to reproduce a table based on DepEd data (figures are in percentage) that originally appeared in a Policy Brief (June 2011) published by the Senate Economic Planning Office:

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program

In the NAT 2010-2011, majority of Philippine secondary schools (almost two-thirds) got poor results, in contrast with of the countrys elementary schools. Alarmed with such results DepEd Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro issued DepEd Order No. 72, Series of 2011 entreating bureau directors, regional directors, schools division/city superintendents, and school administrators to provide intensive supervisory support to improve the NAT performance of Philippine schools. The said document provided a percentage table of schools NAT scores in quartile distribution: Quartile Distribution Superior (76-100%) Upper Average (51-75%) Lower Average (26-50%) Poor (0-25%). Percent of Schools in Every Quartile (NAT-Grade Six) 36.28% 49.62% 14.04% 0.01% Percent of Schools in Every Quartile (NAT-Second Year) 1.13% 31.41% 67.10% 0.35%

Such sad state of basic education in the Philippines is also observable when the countrys performance is contrasted with other countries. In the 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) which evaluated the performance of eighth graders, the Philippines ranked 36th among 38 participating countries, just above Morocco and South Africa. In the 2003

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program TIMSS, Philippine performance was dismal too: in the 4th Grade or 9-year-old category for Mathematics, the Philippines ranked 23rd among 25 participating countries, just above Morocco and Tunisia; in the 8th Grade or 13-year-old category for Mathematics, the country is 41st among 45 countries, just above Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Ghana and South Africa; in the 4th Grade category for Science, the country ranked 23rd among 25 countries, just above Tunisia and Morocco; and in the 8th Grade category for Science, its 42nd in a list of 45 countries, just above Botswana, Ghana and South Africa. Measuring the Philippine score versus the international average, one finds that the countrys performance is below average: in the 4th Grade or 9-yearold category for Mathematics, the countrys score is 358 versus the international average 495; in the 8th Grade or 13-year-old category for Mathematics, its 378 versus 467; in the 4 th Grade category for Science, its 332 versus 489; and in the 8th Grade category for Science, its 377 versus the international average 474. To gain a better perspective of our countrys standing in the 2003 TIMSS, it is helpful to reproduce some tables from the website of Singapores Ministry of Education: Average Achievement of Grade 4 Students Mathematics (Grade 4) Science (Grade 4) Country Singapore Hong Kong, SAR Japan Chinese Taipei Belgium (Flemish) Netherlands Latvia Lithuania Russian Federation England Average 594 575 565 564 551 540 536 534 532 531 Country Singapore Chinese Taipei Japan Hong Kong, SAR England United States Latvia Hungary Russian Federation Netherlands Average 565 551 543 542 540 536 532 530 526 525

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Mathematics (Grade 4) Hungary United States Cyprus Moldova, Rep. of Italy Australia International Average New Zealand Scotland Slovenia Armenia Norway Iran, Islamic Rep. of Philippines Morocco Tunisia 529 518 510 504 503 499 495 493 490 479 456 451 389 358 347 339 Science (Grade 4) Australia New Zealand Belgium (Flemish) Italy Lithuania Scotland Moldova, Rep. of Slovenia International Average Cyprus Norway Armenia Iran, Islamic Rep. of Philippines Tunisia Morocco 521 520 518 516 512 502 496 490 489 480 466 437 414 332 314 304

Average Achievement of Grade 8 Students Mathematics (Grade 8) Science (Grade 8) Country Singapore Korea, Rep. of Hong Kong, SAR Chinese Taipei Japan Belgium (Flemish) Netherlands Estonia Hungary Malaysia Average 605 589 586 585 570 537 536 531 529 508 Country Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea, Rep. of Hong Kong, SAR Estonia Japan Hungary Netherlands United States Australia Average 578 571 558 556 552 552 543 536 527 527

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Mathematics (Grade 8) Latvia Russian Federation Slovak Republic Australia United States Lithuania Sweden Scotland Israel New Zealand Slovenia Italy Armenia Serbia Bulgaria Romania International Average Norway Moldova, Rep. of Cyprus Macedonia, Rep. of Lebanon Jordan Iran, Islamic Rep. of Indonesia Tunisia Egypt Bahrain Palestinian Nat'l Auth. Chile Morocco 508 508 508 505 504 502 499 498 496 494 493 484 478 477 476 475 467 461 460 459 435 433 424 411 411 410 406 401 390 387 387 Science (Grade 8) Sweden Slovenia New Zealand Lithuania Slovak Republic Belgium (Flemish) Russian Federation Latvia Scotland Malaysia Norway Italy Israel Bulgaria Jordan International Average Moldova, Rep. of Romania Serbia Armenia Iran, Islamic Rep. of Macedonia, Rep. of Cyprus Bahrain Palestinian Nat'l Auth. Egypt Indonesia Chile Tunisia Saudi Arabia Morocco 524 520 520 519 517 516 514 512 512 510 494 491 488 479 475 474 472 470 468 461 453 449 441 438 435 421 420 413 404 398 396

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Mathematics (Grade 8) Philippines Botswana Saudi Arabia Ghana South Africa * England 378 366 332 276 264 498 Science (Grade 8) Lebanon Philippines Botswana Ghana South Africa * England 393 377 365 255 244 544

*England did not satisfy guidelines for sample participation rates at Grade 8.

Meanwhile, in May 2011, Philippine papers reported the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Asian rankings of top Philippine universities: University of the Philippines (UP) is 62nd; Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) ranked 68th; University of Santo Tomas (UST) is 104th; De La Salle University (DLSU) ranked 107th. The 2011 QS Asian University Rankings used the following criteria: academic reputation, employer reputation, faculty/student ratio, papers per faculty, citations per paper, international faculty review, international student review, student exchange inbound, and student exchange outbound. In September 2011, QS released its World University Rankings where no Philippine university garnered a rank in the top 300. The countrys premier state university (UP) landed at 332nd from 314th in 2010; ADMU dropped to 360th from 307th last year; DLSU slid to the 551600th bracket from the 451-500th bracket last year; and UST is now below the 551-600th bracket that it occupied in 2010. The 2011 QS World University Rankings used six indicators, namely, employer reputation, faculty/student ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty, and international students.

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Another gauge of the quality of tertiary education in the Philippines is the average national passing rate for regulated professions (such as teaching, civil engineering etc.). In the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) conducted on April 2011, the national average passing rate is only 15.81% for Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED) and 26.28% for Bachelor in Secondary Education (BSED). It must be noted that in the 2008 LET, the national average passing rate is 30.47% for BEED, and 35.34% for BSED. At least in the last decade, the national average passing rate for the LET has never breached 51%. Simply put, majority of examinees dont pass the LET. The data for Civil Engineering Board Exam is just as dismal, considering that in May 2011, 38.34% is the national average passing rate. With these things in mind, it is safe to conclude that theres enough quantitative data to buttress the perception that the quality of Philippine education is at least subpar or worse, steadily deteriorating. Alarmed by such dilemma, the Philippine government has presented the Kindergarten plus/to 12 Years of Basic Education (K to 12) Program as the primary remedy. Like any purported solution, this program must be scrutinized for some cures are at times worse than the diseases that they aim to heal. Philippine K to 12 Program at A Glance The most comprehensive publicly accessible and easy-to-read document that explains the Philippine governments K to 12 scheme is a Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program dated October 5, 2010 and prepared by DepEd. In the said discussion paper, DepEd disclosed that it favors the K-6-4-2 Model which involves a year of kindergarten education (formerly optional), six years of elementary education, four years of junior high school (Grades 7 to 10) and two years of senior high school (Grades 11 to 12). The discussion paper justifies the institutionalization of two years of senior high school asserting

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program that it will provide time for students to consolidate acquired academic skills and competencies that they should have acquired from kindergarten to the sixth grade in elementary. Ostensibly to prepare graduates for possible employment even without any college/university education, the curriculum for senior high school will include specializations in science and technology, music and arts, agriculture and fisheries, sports, business and entrepreneurship, etc. Hence, in a DepEd briefer (November 2, 2010) available at the website of the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, K to 12 is hailed as a scheme that gives students the opportunity to work two (2) years earlier than what would they expect if they were enrolled in a university degree program (Minus 2 years before work) and not as a plan that will add two more years to prolong the period before college/university graduation (Plus 2 years before graduation). Simply put, DepEd would want students and parents to believe that the K-6-4-2 Model minimizes if not eliminates the need to enroll in and/or eventually finish a degree program (a bachelors degree) in a college or a university. Current DepEd Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro revealed that Grades 11 and 12 (senior high school) students will be given on-the-job training and that the K to 12 scheme will enable them to acquire specialized skills, such as creating and implementing business plans, selling products, and even doing journalism (The Daily Tribune, 2011). To allay fears that the implementation of the K to 12 Program could be haphazard, DepEd provided the following time table (reproduced from the Senates Policy Brief on K to 12):

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program

Arguments In Favor of K to 12 To produce a holistic critique of the Kindergarten plus/to 12 Years of Basic Education (K to 12) Program, it is helpful to identify the main arguments put forward by those who favor and those who oppose the scheme. Philippine President Simeon Benigno Noynoy C. Aquino III, then a senator and presidential candidate justified the inclusion of the Kindergarten to 12 Years of Basic Education (K to 12) Program as the first item in his 10-point education agenda (2010) by saying that We need to add two years to our basic education cycle to catch up with the rest of the world. He further states that In this country, those who can afford it pay for up to fourteen years of schooling for their children before university (including pre-school, prep, kindergarten, Grades 1 to 7 and HS I to IV). Thus, their children are getting into the best universities and the best jobs after graduation. Former DepEd undersecretary and education expert Dr. Isagani Cruz lauded Aquinos K to 12 program by claiming that Once the two missing years are added to basic education, however, there will be time for the system to give students the skills to find jobs or become entrepreneurs. The esteemed educator bewailed that (o)ther countries regard us as an educationally backward nation, primarily because we do not educate our children long enough, remarking that (n)o matter how intelligent our children are, they can never learn in 10 years what children in other countries learn in 12. He further argued that our children fail

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program international exams, because other children have had more time to absorb the knowledge and skills that we cram into the shortest educational cycle in the world.

Meanwhile, a briefer dated November 2, 2010 prepared by the DepEd and posted in the website of the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines enumerated eight (8) reasons on why two years should be added to the current 10-year Philippine basic education scheme: to decongest and enhance the basic education curriculum; to provide better quality education for all; to be at par with the world considering that the Philippines is the only remaining country in Asia with a 10-year basic education program; to implement an old proposal (the DepEd claims that the proposal to expand the basic education dates back to 1925); to increase earnings of basic education graduates (the DepEd boasts of studies in the Philippines that have allegedly shown that an additional year of schooling increases earnings by 7.5%); to purportedly improve the quality of education so as to contribute to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth (the DepEd reveals that improvements in the quality of education apparently, in the agencys opinion, the implementation of the K to 12 will increase GDP growth by 2% to 2.2%); to give poor families an employable child in a shorter period of time (the DepEd tries to repackage the K to 12 scheme as a minus 2 instead of plus 2 win scenario for those families who cannot afford college education but still wish to have their children find a good paying job claiming that, right now, parents spend for at least 4 years of college to have an employable child while as per the K to 12 plan, parents will not pay for 2 more years of basic education that will purportedly give them an employable child); and to transform the current popular attitude on basic education so that the completion of high school education will no longer be primarily considered as more

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program than just a preparation for college but, increasingly, as a possible instrument for gainful employment or in pursuit of a career. Interestingly, the World Bank supports the K to 12 scheme. The World Bank Groups Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) Progress Report dated April 20, 2011 claims that (t)he quality of basic education services remains one of the pressing development challenges in the Philippines, revealing that the Philippine Government is also considering extending the basic education cycle from 10 to 12 years under the DepEds Enhanced K to 12 Basic Education Program, for which the Bank promise to sustain technical support and assistance to the reforms in partnership with AusAID and others. The World Bank report went on to say that Ongoing and proposed Bank operations are being aligned to this new policy context and the challenges brought about by the major policy decision to change the basic education cycle. Simply put, the World Bank is willing to finance the K to 12 Program despite the fact that, all throughout its dealings with the country, it is unwilling to provide funds for any major Philippine industrialization project such as petroleum refineries, gold mines, steel mills etc. With the World Banks record of failure to help alleviate the countrys over-all socio-economic status, especially when it comes to bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, its support for the K to 12 scheme is reason enough to cast doubts on the real agenda of this divisive educational reform. Meanwhile, renowned businessman Ramon R. del Rosario, Jr., the president of Philippine Business for Education (PBED) an organization that actively supports the government K to 12 scheme in a speech before the 2011 League of Corporate Foundations (LCF) Annual Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Expo claimed that K to 12 will improve the lives of our youth, and urged the acceleration of its implementation, lamenting that If we stay on this course, our college graduates, between now and 2020, will not yet be globally comparable. Must we leave

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program behind our students graduating from 2012 to 2020? We feel that we need to explore and implement steps that will begin to improve the global competitiveness of our graduates, as early as now. Del Rosario bats for the institutionalization of the K to 12 program through legislation so as to avoid its complete reversal by a new administration come 2016. Professor Juan Miguel Luz, associate dean of the Asian Institute of Managements Center for Development Management and former DepEd undersecretary, assumes that To be competitive, the Philippines must develop a labor force with knowledge and skills comparable with the rest of the world. That has to start with more years of basic education. Like his fellow former DepEd Undersecretary Dr. Isagani Cruz, Prof. Luz claims that The Philippines has the shortest basic education cycle before qualifying to enter university or college of any country in Asia 10 years (6 years elementary plus 4 years secondary). He is quick to add that UNESCO recognizes 12 years of basic education as the global norm, excluding pre-school. This includes elementary and secondary education but excludes pre-schooling. Professor Luz says (a) 12year basic education cycle where the same subjects can be spread out over a longer period of time is the solution to the short education cycle problem which results to little or poor learning by our children. To emphasize the purported need to follow international standards, Prof. Luz states that Philippine high school graduates going for university study abroad (i.e. Australia, US) are now being made to take an additional senior year of high school to qualify. The Philippine HS curriculum is not seen as covering enough material. The former DepEd undersecretary expressed concern for the gap between the elite and the poor in terms of years of basic schooling which creates a situation where graduates from lower-income families with less years of basic education are at a disadvantage whether competing for university slots or for jobs. He thus presented the K to 12 program as an egalitarian scheme to eradicate such divide.

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Nick Tenazas, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) consultant praises the timing of the K to 12 Program which comes at the heels of the recently concluded global recession, as Southeast Asian tigers like Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand are widening their lead over the Philippines in terms of labor quality and overall investment climate. He asserts that even (e)merging economies in our backyard, namely Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam are also prioritizing skills development. Tenazas claims that K to 12 also aspires to correct the connotation that basic education is simply a preparation for college, and to establish industrylinked technical training systems enough to drive the economy as what developed countries like Germany, Australia and South Korea have achieved. He theorizes that If a credible high school diploma can be earned at age 18, students will have another career option aside from college. If they decide on entering the labor market immediately after high school, they will not be second-class workers but instead, they will be fully protected by labor laws and safety nets. The general arguments of the pro-K to 12 camp can be summarized as follows: extending the basic education cycle is necessary for the Philippine system to be at par with international standards; the program will improve student learning and uplift the over-all quality of education in the country; the scheme will enable poor students to find work right after senior high school graduation without enrolling in and/or finishing a bachelors degree first; the plan will make Filipino graduates globally competitive (e.g. capable of landing jobs overseas and in foreign firms that operate in the country). Arguments Against the K to 12 Scheme Ironically, teachers organizations, student groups and education sector consortia are at the forefront of the broad and vocal opposition to the Philippine governments K to 12 scheme. The Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines), a national and

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program multisectoral consortium of non-government organizations, adopted a moderately critical stance by asserting that The Enhanced K to 12 program is not ripe for implementation as there are more pressing issues besetting the basic educational system that need to be addressed. Memberorganizations of E-Net Philippines believe that ...simply adding 2 years to the basic education program will not arrest the deteriorating quality of education in the country. Hinting that beyond the jobs-and-skills mismatch, the lack of industries in the country is the primary cause of unemployment, E-Net Philippines claims that The additional 2 years in the basic education does not guarantee employment unless there are enough employment opportunities available in the market. Finally, the consortium blasts the K to 12 program as a scheme that fails to comply with the primary purpose of education which is to develop competent citizens who will serve the needs of the country and not to qualify them for jobs abroad. E-Net Philippines assertion is bolstered by the constitutional provision which outlines the countrys educational goals: Article XIV Section 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula. (2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency. Meanwhile, the largest organization of teachers and workers in the education sector in the country, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) labeled the K to 12 scheme as a man-made disaster which is ill-conceived as it repeats the bureaucratic, anti-democratic...manner of implementing educational reforms. It must be emphasized that, indeed, like other purported education reforms before, the K to 12 scheme is another imposition from above. Public

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program consultations were only held after the program has been adopted by DepEd. This explains why most teachers organizations are against the scheme. They were never consulted prior to its adoption. After the dismal failure of DepEds haphazard implementation of K to 12 Schemes (compulsory) universal kindergaten in public schools, the opposition of teachers to the program has become more vocal. In a Manila Bulletin report (June 7, 2011), teachers are quoted as saying We are teachers, not carabaos! to protest DepEds treatment of kindergarten teachers. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT)-Manila chapter and Manila Kindergarten Teachers Association (MAKITA) marched to DepEd after their classes to reveal how the implementation of the governments kindergarten program miserably failed in the first day of school (June 6, 2011). ACT National Vice President Benjie Valbuena said that plus the implementation of K to 12 will make education even worst considering that before it was crafted and implemented, perennial and unresolved problems still exist in our educational system, including shortages in school building and classrooms, instructional materials and books, lack of teachers, and facilities among others. While ACT-Manila Chapter President Louie Zabala expressed the organizations support for universal kindegarten, he emphasized that the provision in DepEd Order No. 37, series of 2011 regarding the conduct of two-session classes or six hours of straight teaching will not help produce quality Kindergarten Education. De Ocampo, the MAKITA president complained that This policy is very difficult for us especially with the large number of enrollment, our class sizes go up to almost 60 students per class instead of the ideal 35 pupils per class. The No to K to 12 Alliance, a coalition of students, student councils, parents, and teachers, had also voiced out its united opposition to the much-ballyhooed education reform through this justification "The implementation of the universal kindergarten phase of the K to 12 failed miserably, enough proof that the government failed in its attempt to implement the initial

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program plan to add two more years to the current 10-year basic education cycle." The group claims that the sudden implementation of K to 12s first step (compulsory kindergarten) will put the education sector under much stress considering that the system has no sufficient classrooms for the 1.93 million five-year old kids who enrolled in the governments kindergarten program. Such deficiency is on top of the reported shortage of 103,599 teachers, 152,569 classrooms, 13,225,527 chairs, and 95,557,957 textbooks in public elementary and secondary schools for school year 2011-2012 (SunStar June 23, 2011), not to mention shortages on desks and sanitation systems. It in this context that League of Filipino Students (LFS) spokesperson Aki Merced criticized the Aquino administration for insisting on a program (that is) bound to fail. Vencer Crisostomo, secretary general of Kabataan Partylist and former national chairperson of the League of Filipino Students (LFS) begins his critique of the K to 12 scheme by emphasizing its hidden economic costs to parents and students: The administrations plan is a plain insult to poor parents and students who are trying hard to make ends meet. As it is, families can barely afford to get their kids through 10 years of education. He echoes the concern of ACT Secretary General France Castro, who in a broadcast interview said that two more years of basic education means two more years of additional expenses related to schooling such as transportation fare, student allowance for food etc., which the government wont of course shoulder. Crisostomo claims that (p)oor parents are not able to afford the educational expenses even just for the 10-year basic education cycle as proven by the rising drop-out rates. He further claims that During the past years, only 4 out of 10 students entering the school cycle manages to finish high school, and only one will be able to get a degree. More than 8 million Filipino school aged youth are out-of-school because of hardships. Crisostomo concludes that expanding the basic education cycle will further raise the drop out rates, thereby causing young Filipino to be

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program deprived of their right to education. While he impliedly acknowledges that the quality of education is declining, he emphasizes that even with a prolonged education cycle, deficiency in quality will persist for as long as current educational dilemmas (e.g. high classroom to student ratio, error-laden textbooks, underpaid teachers and dilapidated facilities) can be addressed. Blasting the claim that K to 12 will produce employable senior high school graduates, the chairperson of Kabataan Partylist says There are no jobs not because there is a lack of employable young people but because there is no clear plan for national development which will lead to sustainable job generation. Crisostomo went further to condemn the scheme as ...primarily designed to serve foreign needs for cheap semiskilled labor. Senator Antonio Sonny Trillanes IV filed Senate Resolution Number 599 (May 31, 2011) which provides a comprehensive perspective that casts doubts on the feasibility, viability, practicability and the acceptability of justifications advanced by the Department of Education in implementing the K to 12 Education Program. The said resolution questioned the validity of using the TIMSS results as a justification to implement the K to 12 scheme by quoting a regression analysis study by UP Professor Abraham I. Felipe and Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE) Executive Director Carolina C. Porio which found out that (t)here is no clear empirical basis in TIMSS to justify a proposal for the Philippines to lengthen its education cycle...There is no basis to expect that lengthening the educational cycle calendar-wise, will improve the quality of education... Senator Trillanes resolution on K to 12 impliedly blames the governments lack of ample financial support to the education sector as the main reason for the decline in the quality of education, emphasizing that for the past decade, the Philippine annual budgetary allocation for education has barely breached three percent (3%) of the GDP in the past decade, despite the fact that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Organizations (UNESCO) standard is pegged at six percent (6%) of the GDP. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook, the Philippines allots only 2.8% of its GDP to education. In contrast, the top 10 countries in the 2010 Human Development Index have these figures: Norway (6.8%), Australia (4.5%), New Zealand (6.10%), United States (5.5%), Ireland (4.9%), Netherlands (5.3%), Canada (4.9%), Sweden (6.6%), and Germany (4.5%). Meanwhile, neighboring Asian countries allot the following rates of their GDP to education: South Korea (4.2%), Vietnam (5.3%), and Timor Leste/East Timor (16.80%) Singapore (3%), Japan (3.5%), India (3.1%), Malaysia (4.10%), Thailand (4.10%) and Nepal (4.6%). Worldwide, the Philippines is no. 139 among 164 countries in terms of the percentage of the GDP allotted to education. The substandard budget for Philippine education negatively affects the quality of education, more than the 10-year basic education cycle, the anti-K to 12 camp argues. Just like many teachers organizations, Sen. Trillanes believes that contrary to the rationale advanced by proponents of the K to 12 curriculum that increasing the number of years of basic education would translate to the increase in the quality of education, intervening variables such as the disproportionate ratio of students to teachers, the serious shortage in classrooms and deficiency in educational infrastructure, facilities and academic materials in many areas in the country are perceived to have greater impact on the performance of these students in achievement tests. With regard to the claim of employability of high school graduates, Sen. Trillanes cited statistics from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) showing that as of January 2011 [n]early half (48.9% or 1.427 million) of the total unemployed workforce were young workers (aged 15 to 24 years old) ... youth unemployment rate at 17.2% was more than twice the national average ... [and] [t]he majority (47.0% or 1.373 million) were high school graduates or undergraduates ... [equally large were college undergraduates and graduates (39.1% or 1.141

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program million), implying that our country's disturbingly high unemployment rates particularly among the youth may have nothing to do with the length of basic education in the country but, rather, calls for a serious review of the country's economic system and the government's job generation policies. This echoes Kabataan Partylist Chairperson Vencer Crisostomos complaint about the governments lack of a clear plan for national development which will lead to sustainable job generation. Finally, it must be mentioned that the K to 12 scheme has no clear specification on what will happen to teachers of tertiary level institutions, especially teachers of subjects in the General Education Curriculum (GEC). As per popular speculations in the academic community (based on the researchers actual conversations with tertiary level teachers from at least 6 universities in Metro Manila), the GEC will be trimmed down at the tertiary level. Purportedly, some (if not all) of the GEC subjects will be absorbed by the two-year senior high school curriculum. Unfortunately, theres no way to immediately verify the veracity of such speculations due to the dearth of publicly available materials regarding how DepEd intends to implement K to 12 on a piece-meal basis, another proof that this current education reform is a haphazard top-down imposition rather than a well-thought product of consensus among stakeholders in the education sector. Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that the speculations are partly valid, considering that the current K to 12 scheme intends to offer English, Science, Mathematics, Filipino and Contemporary Issues as the core learning areas in senior high school (Grades 11 and 12) so that after graduation, students are already prepared for employment, entrepreneurship, or middle-level skills development and can thus lead successful lives even if they do not pursue higher studies (Senate Briefer, 2011). If the GEC subjects will be the core learning areas of senior high school, it is possible that the GEC in the university might be trimmed down, or at worst, abolished. Thus, a number of instructors and professors

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program voiced out their opposition to the K to 12 due to their fear of possible retrenchment or transfer to senior high school. The Way Forward: Education for National Development Generally, the anti-K to 12 camp thinks that the additional two years of basic education is an additional burden. The opposition to the government K to 12 Program strongly rests on the perceived lack of quality of the current 10-year basic education cycle which is perennially troubled by deficiencies in many aspects, especially in terms of finances. Quoting the DepEd Briefer on K to 12, Senator Trillanes pointed out that the program is too costly, considering that it requires P150 billion for 152,569 new classrooms, 103,599 more teachers, 95.6 million more books, and 13.2 million more seats. The anti-K to 12 side generally argues that such amount is better spent for improving the current 10-year basic education cycle. For those who oppose the swift implementation of K to 12, funding it is like throwing good money after bad. Thus, the only workable compromise is for the government to temporarily shelve out the K to 12 scheme until current deficiencies in the 10-year basic education cycle are addressed. Its like repairing or rebuilding the foundations of a huge infrastructure project so as to ensure that its vertical expansion wont cause the building to collapse. Otherwise, the implementation of the K to 12 scheme would just go down in history as one of the many failed reforms that this country have had in the past decades. The failed implementation of the universal kindergarten program (the first step in achieving K to 12) in June 2011 is an accurate forecast of what will happen if the Aquino administration pushes through with its scheme. Another thing, a highly unpopular education reform scheme which was never subjected to prior deliberation in the grassroots level of the stakeholders is bound to be plagued with troubles. A program that lacks the support of students and teachers, (even parents) is more likely to fail. If the government is sincere in

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program reforming the education system, it must halt K to 12 so that the two opposing camps would be able to cooperate first in overhauling the current 10-year pre-university education, which should be prioritized if any future reform is to be successful. After the 10-year basic education cycle is perfected, the debate on whether to extend it by two more years will have a clearer perspective. Those who favor the K to 12 scheme as a way to make the countrys education system at par with the education system of other countries seem to ignore the main purpose of any education system, which is to serve the interest of the country where such system operates. Simply put, those who simply wish for the increase of Filipino students in international universities through K to 12 should be reminded that while international education is well and good for those who would want to attain it, the main goal of the Philippine education system is to propel and/or complement national development as stated in the Philippine Constitution. Practically, only fewer Filipino students would need to study abroad if Philippine universities offer affordable and quality education. On the problem of employability, the anti-K to 12 camp is correct in emphasizing that the governments job creation program should be reviewed and overhauled. Its common knowledge that the governments biggest job program is the Marcos-initiated deployment of Filipino workers abroad. The governments labor export policy scheme is so successful that OFW remittances amounted to 10% of the Philippine Gross National Product in 2010. Due to the current international financial crisis (e.g. debt woes of the United States of America and some countries in the Euro Zone), the Philippine government is duty-bound to seek an alternative job program. Focus should be shifted to local job creation. Thus, instead of just contemplating whether the education cycle should be expanded or not, the government must ensure that the constitutional goal of education (e.g. promotion of national development) is achieved. Instead of

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program just complying with international standards by producing globally competitive graduates for overseas employment or local employment under foreign firms or subsidiaries, the Philippine government must start preparing Filipino graduates who are capable and willing to help the country in achieving progress. The best way to insulate the Philippines from the international financial crisis and to maximize the countrys labor force and rich natural resources is to utilize such through industrialization. Thus, it seems that a paradigm shift should be prioritized over the mechanical addition of two years in basic education. If this is to be followed, K to 12 schemes inherent and declared bias for overseas employment and semi-skilled labor to serve big firms, should be scrapped. Consequently, the government will be compelled to take a more active role in national industrialization through capital accumulation and mobilization, and industrial management so as to ensure that all, or at least majority of Filipino graduates will be absorbed by local jobs. Without funds, reforms are impossible. To accumulate capital for educational reforms and industrialization, the country may stop debt payments for 10 years and refuse to pay onerous/illegitimate debts (like the funds used for the North Rail Project). It must be noted that 40% of the 2011 National Budget or 800 billion pesos ($20 billion) went to debt payments. In the proposed 2012 National Budget, 689 billion pesos ($16.80 billion) will be allotted to debt payments, contrary to the Aquino regimes blatant lie that education got the lions share of the national budget. The savings that the Philippines can have by stopping debt payments for just two years amount to $36.8 billion (enough to buy out the assets of the countrys 11 richest individuals in the country whose combined wealth amounts to $24.4 billion). The country can also demand a refund for paid illegitimate debts (e.g. payment for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant). The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth from past and present plunderers will be also helpful.

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Quality education has a price and in a poor country like the Philippines, as stated in Article XIV of the Constitution, the government is duty-bound to pay for it. At the very least, before talking about any proposal to extend the education cycle, the government should first implement the UNESCO standard for education budget relative to the GDP (ar least 6%). Otherwise, the Philippine education system will remain as bad as it is today, if not worse, upon the addition of two more years in basic education. The workable compromise under the Aquino administration is best described by the words of youth leader Vencer Crisostomo: ...to genuinely address the problems of the education sector by filling the gaps in classroom and facilities, fulfilling his promise to increase state subsidy for education to six percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), stopping unjust tuition and other fee increases, increasing teachers wages and pushing for a nationalist-oriented curriculum and education system. Ultimately, any reform loses potency if the people dont accept it. The culture of silence imposed by more than a century of English hegemony in the national discourse must be reversed. Citizens should actively participate in crafting national and local policies in education. Towards this end, summoning a national consultative assembly on education is necessary. The medium of such assembly should be the national language so that people will be able to discuss their ideas freely. As a start, this national assembly must bring about an education system that follows the basic framework of the nationalist writer Renato Constantino (1982): The education of the Filipino must be a Filipino education. It must be based on the needs of the nation and the goals of the nation. The object is not merely to produce men and women who can read and write or who can add and subtract. The primary object is to produce a citizenry that appreciates and is conscious of its nationhood and has national goals for the betterment of the community, and not an anarchic mass of people who know how to take care of themselves only...Education should

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program first of all assure national survival. No amount of economic and political policy can be successful if the educational program does not imbue prospective citizens with the proper attitudes that will ensure the implementation of these goals and policies. Philippine educational policies should be geared to the making of Filipinos. These policies should see to it that schools produce men and women with minds and attitudes that are attuned to the needs of the country.... Obviously, such education system cant be implemented as a top-down imposition. The Filipino people know their need better than bureaucrats and self-proclaimed experts. Any educational reform must be discussed at the grassroots level. As the youth leader Isagani in Jose Rizals El Filibusterismo told the careerist and opportunist lawyer Seor Pasta, Governments are established for the welfare of the peoples, and in order to accomplish this purpose properly they have to follow the suggestions of the citizens, who are the ones best qualified to understand their own needs. Unfortunately, the K to 12 scheme did not undergo this democratic process. Hence, it must be temporarily shelved out pending a consultative assembly on education reforms. References: ABS-CBN News Online (2010, January 6). DepEd: National Achievement Tests set for March. Retrieved from: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com Aquino III, Benigno Simeon Noynoy T. (2010). 10 things I will fix in Philippine Basic Education. National Institute for Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://www.nips.org.ph Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines) (2010). E-Nets Position Paper on the Enhanced Kto12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved from: http://www.enetphil.org Crisostomo, Vencer (2010, September 11). Aquinos K12 Program: wrong solution to education woes [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.vencercrisostomo.com

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Cruz, Isagani. (2010, June 11). For the record: Pnoy on education [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com Del Rosario Jr., Ramon (2011, July 21). K to 12: K Ba? Basic Education at a Crossroad. Retrieved from http://www.pbed.ph Hernando-Malipot, Ina (2011, June 7). Teachers grumble: 'Carabao' treatment infuriates kindergarten mentors. Manila Bulletin Online. Retrieved from: http://mb.com.ph International Center for Education Statistics (c.2000). Mathematics and Science Achievement of Eighth-Graders in 1999. Retrieved from: http://www.nces.ed.gov International League of Peoples Struggles (2011, July 11). Teachers up against education cuts, unemployment and low pay. First Response for English Educators Online. Retrieved from: http://www.freedteachers.org Luz, Juan Miguel. (2010, December 7). To Be Competitive, We Need a 12-year Basic Education Cycle [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.perj.wordpress.com Philippine Department of Education (2011). DepEd Order No. 72, Series of 2011. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph _____________________________ (2010). Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph _____________________________ (2010). Briefer on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program. Official Gazette. Retrieved from: http://www.gov.ph Singaporean Ministry of Education (2004, December 16). Singapore tops the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. Retrieved from:

http://www.moe.gov.sg

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Governments Kindergarten to 12 (K to 12) Program Sunstar Manila (2011, June 23). Group vows to collect a million signatures vs K+12. Retrieved from: http://www.sunstar.com.ph Tenazas, Nick. (2010, December 7). OPINION: The Economics of K+12 [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.perj.wordpress.com The Daily Tribune Online (2011, September 21). Luistro bares benefits high school students will derive from K+12 program. Retrieved from: http://www.tribuneonline.org Trillanes IV, Antonio Sonny (2011, May 31). Senate Resolution Number 599. Philippine Senate. Retrieved from: http://www.senate.gov.ph World Bank Group (2011). Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) Progress Report for the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from: http://www-wds.worldbank.org Yap, Rocky Howard et al. (2011). K to 12: The Key to Quality Education?. Senate Economic Planning Office. Retrieved from: http://www.senate.gov.ph