De La Salle-College of St. Benilde Hotel, Manila · De La Salle-College of St. Benilde Hotel, ... comparing 2006 and 2009 results. ... DepEd Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro issued DepEd

A Holistic Critique of the Philippine Government’s 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


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 government’s

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.


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 over-

all 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:


In the NAT 2010-2011, majority of Philippine secondary schools (almost two-thirds)

got poor results, in contrast with of the country’s 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 Percent of Schools in Every Quartile(NAT-Grade Six)

Percent of Schools in Every Quartile(NAT-Second Year)

Superior (76-100%) 36.28% 1.13%Upper Average (51-75%) 49.62% 31.41%Lower Average (26-50%) 14.04% 67.10%Poor (0-25%). 0.01% 0.35%

Such sad state of basic education in the Philippines is also observable when the country’s

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


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, it’s 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 country’s performance is below average: in the 4th Grade or 9-year-

old category for Mathematics, the country’s score is 358 versus the international average 495; in

the 8th Grade or 13-year-old category for Mathematics, it’s 378 versus 467; in the 4th Grade

category for Science, it’s 332 versus 489; and in the 8th Grade category for Science, it’s 377

versus the international average 474. To gain a better perspective of our country’s standing in the

2003 TIMSS, it is helpful to reproduce some tables from the website of Singapore’s Ministry of

Education:

Average Achievement of Grade 4 Students

Mathematics (Grade 4) Science (Grade 4)

Country Average Country Average

Singapore 594 Singapore 565

Hong Kong, SAR 575 Chinese Taipei 551

Japan 565 Japan 543

Chinese Taipei 564 Hong Kong, SAR 542

Belgium (Flemish) 551 England 540

Netherlands 540 United States 536

Latvia 536 Latvia 532

Lithuania 534 Hungary 530

Russian Federation 532 Russian Federation 526

England 531 Netherlands 525



Hungary 529 Australia 521

United States 518 New Zealand 520

Cyprus 510 Belgium (Flemish) 518

Moldova, Rep. of 504 Italy 516

Italy 503 Lithuania 512

Australia 499 Scotland 502

International Average 495 Moldova, Rep. of 496

New Zealand 493 Slovenia 490

Scotland 490 International Average 489

Slovenia 479 Cyprus 480

Armenia 456 Norway 466

Norway 451 Armenia 437

Iran, Islamic Rep. of 389 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 414

Philippines 358 Philippines 332

Morocco 347 Tunisia 314

Tunisia 339 Morocco 304

Average Achievement of Grade 8 Students


Country Average Country Average

Singapore 605 Singapore 578

Korea, Rep. of 589 Chinese Taipei 571

Hong Kong, SAR 586 Korea, Rep. of 558

Chinese Taipei 585 Hong Kong, SAR 556

Japan 570 Estonia 552

Belgium (Flemish) 537 Japan 552

Netherlands 536 Hungary 543

Estonia 531 Netherlands 536

Hungary 529 United States 527

Malaysia 508 Australia 527



Latvia 508 Sweden 524

Russian Federation 508 Slovenia 520

Slovak Republic 508 New Zealand 520

Australia 505 Lithuania 519

United States 504 Slovak Republic 517

Lithuania 502 Belgium (Flemish) 516

Sweden 499 Russian Federation 514

Scotland 498 Latvia 512

Israel 496 Scotland 512

New Zealand 494 Malaysia 510

Slovenia 493 Norway 494

Italy 484 Italy 491

Armenia 478 Israel 488

Serbia 477 Bulgaria 479

Bulgaria 476 Jordan 475

Romania 475 International Average 474

International Average 467 Moldova, Rep. of 472

Norway 461 Romania 470

Moldova, Rep. of 460 Serbia 468

Cyprus 459 Armenia 461

Macedonia, Rep. of 435 Iran, Islamic Rep. of 453

Lebanon 433 Macedonia, Rep. of 449

Jordan 424 Cyprus 441

Iran, Islamic Rep. of 411 Bahrain 438

Indonesia 411 Palestinian Nat'l Auth. 435

Tunisia 410 Egypt 421

Egypt 406 Indonesia 420

Bahrain 401 Chile 413

Palestinian Nat'l Auth. 390 Tunisia 404

Chile 387 Saudi Arabia 398

Morocco 387 Morocco 396



Philippines 378 Lebanon 393

Botswana 366 Philippines 377

Saudi Arabia 332 Botswana 365

Ghana 276 Ghana 255

South Africa 264 South Africa 244

* England 498 * England 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 country’s premier state university (UP) landed at

332nd from 314th in 2010; ADMU dropped to 360th from 307th last year; DLSU slid to the 551-

600th 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.”


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 don’t 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 there’s 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 government’s 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


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 bachelor’s 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 Senate’s “Policy Brief” on K to 12):


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 Aquino’s 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


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 agency’s 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


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 Group’s

“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 DepEd‘s 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

Bank’s record of failure to help alleviate the country’s 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


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 Management’s 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) 12-

year 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.


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 “industry-

linked 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 bachelor’s 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 government’s K to 12 scheme.

The Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines), a national and


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.” Member-

organizations 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 country’s 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


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 DepEd’s haphazard implementation of K to 12 Scheme’s

(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 DepEd’s 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 government’s 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 organization’s

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


plan to add two more years to the current 10-year basic education cycle." The group claims that

the sudden implementation of K to 12’s 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 government’s 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 administration’s 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 won’t 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


“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 government’s 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


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


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 Crisostomo’s complaint about the

government’s 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 researcher’s 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, there’s 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


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. It’s like repairing or

rebuilding the foundations of a huge infrastructure project so as to ensure that its vertical

expansion won’t 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


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 country’s 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

government’s job creation program should be reviewed and overhauled. It’s common knowledge

that the government’s biggest job program is the Marcos-initiated deployment of Filipino

workers abroad. The government’s 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


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 country’s 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 scheme’s

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 regime’s blatant lie that education got the lion’s 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 country’s 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.


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 don’t 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


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 can’t 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 Rizal’s “El Filibusterismo”

told the careerist and opportunist lawyer Señor 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-Net’s Position

Paper on the Enhanced Kto12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved from: http://www.e-

netphil.org

Crisostomo, Vencer (2010, September 11). Aquino’s K12 Program: wrong solution to education

woes [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.vencercrisostomo.com


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 People’s 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


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

Documents

De La Salle-College of St. Benilde Hotel, Manila · De La Salle-College of St. Benilde Hotel, ... comparing 2006 and 2009 results. ... DepEd Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro issued DepEd