BUKIDNON VIEWS: A Closer Look Into DepEd’s K to 12 Program

LOS BAÑOS (BukidnonNews.Net/25 June) To address the dismal state of education in the country, the government’s education department came up with the K to 12 program. In a discussion paper circulated by DepEd last Oct. 5, 2010, the following reasons are cited as to why K to 12 should be implemented: 1.) the previous curriculum is congested; 2.) Mediocre performance of students in 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) where Philippines ranked 34 out of 38 in HS II Math, 43 out of 46 in HS II Science; and 23 out of 25 for Grade 4 in Math and Science; 3.) Low passing rate of students in National Achievement Test (NAT) – 69.21% for Grade 6 and 46.38% for High School; 4.) Graduates are not ready enough to work or to pursue higher studies; 5.) College graduates in the Philippines are not recognized abroad. From the reasons cited above, it can be deduced that the K to 12 program seeks to upgrade the basic education curriculum in order to uplift our educational system. This, of course, is a laudable initiative when taken at face value. However, we need to treat it with caution as laudable initiatives nowadays are usually laced with unsavory motives. The PDAF and the DAP fiasco has taught us that it is not wise to readily believe what some government officials tell us. The K to 12 program sponsors argue that to be at par with international standards, the addition of two more years to the usual 10 year cycle is necessary. This line of argument banks on the idea that the lack of more instructional time for students to master core competencies is the culprit behind the country’s dismal state of education. But then, this argument becomes irrelevant in the actual implementation of the program. Why? Well, simply because the addition of two more years in the education cycle does not actually address the lack of instructional time for core competencies. The added two years are allotted for skills development that is meant to guarantee a ready supply of cheap labor. With this, it can safely be assumed then that K to 12 does not truly address the issue of a congested curriculum. Another buzzword from the K to 12 program is the so-called spiral approach. Proponents of the program claim that the spiral approach is better and that it is more beneficial in achieving mastery of core competencies. But then, how can this become favorable and better when we consider the fact that teachers usually have specializations? How can teachers efficiently teach lessons which are not in the domain of their specialization? Can we expect a chemistry teacher to be effective in teaching biology? Or perhaps for a statistics teacher to teach calculus? The answers are quite obvious. From the questions above, it can be gleaned that the effectiveness of the spiral approach hinges on the number of teachers available to cover all specializations. So this would mean that the government needs to hire even more teachers which is not feasible from a financial point of view. Another option would be to retrain all the teachers in order for them to be equipped for the spiral approach. This is not just financially unsound but also pragmatically flawed as it does not guarantee that the training (however comprehensive it might be) will produce effective teachers for the spiral approach. To address the effectiveness of teachers for the spiral approach would mean that the curriculum for teachers’ education should also be drastically altered and tailored to the spiral approach. Moreover, claims that the low passing rate of students in the NAT can be traced back to the previous curriculum are not well founded. To date, there is no solid research yet that ties the previous curriculum to low performance in the NAT. But even without research, it is easy to suppose that the low passing rate in the NAT can be attributed to a lot of factors which would include the lack of basic facilities like classrooms, and lack of well-trained teachers. -From bukidnonnews.net