PH education needs a learning task force
Late last year, the quality of Philippine education was laid bare for all to see with the release of the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) results. The study showed that an overwhelming majority of our learners (80 percent) have not reached the global minimum competency level for reading, math, and science.
For organizations that have been working for education reform, such as the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd), the Pisa results only affirmed what we already know: We are facing a learning crisis. Philippine education is in trouble, and immediate and transformative action is needed.
The results are no surprise considering previous internal assessments such as the National Achievement Test (NAT), third-party evaluation of teacher quality, and employer feedback on their hiring difficulties. This crisis is a result of accumulated years of disjointed and unsustained policies and reform efforts. In their brilliant discussion paper on why education reforms don’t transform, Bautista, Ocampo, and Bernardo (2008) attribute this failure to “projectization” and the lack of scale of many reform efforts.
While there have been gains, we still see these factors contributing to the learning crisis a decade hence. This learning crisis demands honest-to-goodness reflection and deliberate action that would transform Philippine education. The proposed revival of the 1990 Congressional Education Commission (EdCom) through joint resolutions recently filed in both houses of Congress is perhaps a step toward that much-needed systemic change. We believe that key principles should guide this “new EdCom” or task force.
First, it should have multisectoral participation and decision-making. Second, it should be evidence-based. And third, it should be driven by the mission of reversing the learning crisis; consider for example, aiming for 80 percent (if not all) of our learners achieving above-minimum global competency for reading, math, and science. In their current versions, the joint resolutions limit the composition of the new EdCom to legislators.
While a technical secretariat is provided for, the resolutions are not as explicit in the consultation and decision-making process. The 1990 EdCom conducted multiple conversations with hundreds of people. We should aim for a much bigger scale of consultations, given advancements in technology.
The new EdCom must be grounded on evidence, both local and international, of what has worked to improve learning. Local examples of public schools that did well in Pisa, such as the one in Pasig City, should be studied and the results, if practical and sensible, scaled. Inspiration should be drawn from countries such as Peru that have significantly improved learning and moved up in the Pisa rankings. This also speaks to the importance of continuing participation in international assessments. We need good, reliable, and actionable data on how well we have fared in our efforts to improve learning.
Finally, the new EdCom should be mission-driven. Any mission presupposes multiple players, with diverse expertise, but with a shared common passion for one destination. We want a task force that will involve the best and brightest teachers, policymakers, parents, business leaders, bureaucrats, civil society, and the youth. We want a task force that will produce the best quality teaching, effective governance structure, and most critically, the highest quality learning for every Filipino.
Here are some suggested key areas to focus on. While teachers are often criticized and blamed for bad education outcomes, they are also the most important partners in education reform. PBEd’s work in this area includes partnerships with the best teacher education institutions to improve their admissions standards for teacher education programs, coupled with a comprehensive mentoring program for future teachers. We want to attract the best and brightest, and help them succeed.
Second, our investments need to boost learning. This requires flexibility to adapt our educational system to the changing world of work. Through a partnership with the United States Agency for International Development, we are working to make education and training more responsive to the needs of the economy by promoting work-based training among youth not in education, employment and training. This project recognizes industry as partners in education and training, and explores a model that looks at post-secondary education through a broader lens. This model has worked in other countries like Germany and Singapore. We need to think of how this can be scaled in ours.
Finally, we need to look at education governance. There should be unity and continuity in vision, design, and implementation between education sub-systems, and across sectors such as health and social welfare. We all need to be on the same page as we push for global competitiveness, given that our low ranking in the Pisa could also be attributed to malnutrition and other socioeconomic factors. Rereading the 1991 EdCom report today still gives one an unfortunate sense of déjà vu.
The Pisa results have provoked a period of reflection, but this learning crisis requires decisive, urgent, and collective action. Let reflection not lead to despair and paralysis. It’s time to revive the EdCom, and move toward true learning for all Filipinos.
Love Basillote is executive director of Philippine Business for Education. For questions and comments, email [email protected].
