THIS MAY run counter to the chorus of parental voices against the K to 12 education reform program, but I write it with a mind toward healthy debate and fully convinced that everyone has the best of intentions.
I have just come out of the parents’ orientation program at my son’s new school, where many of the delegates registered their strong opposition to K to 12. My son Anton, who has just completed the seventh grade and freshly graduated from grade school, is now in the secondary level at the Philippine Science High School (PSHS, or simply Pisay) where, along with the rest of his batch going through the K to 12 pilot, he has to go through Grade 7 again. For this alone I should also be opposing the new scheme, but I am in fact supportive of it for a number of reasons.
First, I find the justifications for the new program sound. Our primary and secondary education are indeed too short; they are inadequate for the higher demands of tertiary education if we are to go by current global parameters.
Second, I disagree with the view of other parents that PSHS students are academically proficient, anyway, that the four-year high school curriculum need not be extended to sufficiently train them for college. The point of K to 12 is to prepare all Filipino students more extensively. I don’t think we should privilege PSHS with a shorter preparatory program than the rest. Or, more precisely, I don’t think we should penalize PSHS students with a shorter preparatory program than what they are entitled to under the new setup. This more extensive academic formation is a privilege that everyone ought to enjoy.
Some of the critical parents, themselves eminent and well-meaning Pisay alumni, emphasized the superior quality of PSHS education, arguing that the fresh Pisay graduate is supposed to be so honed and primed that entering college would seem like a fast car suddenly caught in traffic. Many PSHS alumni in fact lose their academic interest in college due to this radical change in pace. This situation described by the parents is real and observable, but it does not bolster the anti-K to 12 position at all. On the contrary, it is a good case for decongesting the PSHS curriculum (we don’t want students to be hyper-speeding in high school only to lose their drive in college)—and therefore an unwitting argument in favor of K to 12.
And this brings me to my third reason: the implications of K to 12. I surmise that implementing it would entail decongesting the curriculum and possibly adding more subjects. The advantages of both are obvious: adding subjects means more things to learn. Decongesting the curriculum would allow more time for nonacademic but equally important pursuits, such as sports and the arts, and make for more well-rounded young citizens.
On another, related note, I contemplated the proposition to distinguish between elementary graduates who underwent Grade 7 and those who reached Grade 6 only (i.e. for them to enter PSHS at different levels), and decided I’m also not in favor of it. This is because secondary school is holistically different from primary. The entire batch of entrants needs to receive the whole academic package offered by the school.
As a final point, I am not oblivious to the other problems attendant to this new scheme, such as the dangers of haphazard implementation and poverty as a stumbling block. These are equally legitimate concerns, hence the need to be on guard and involved in the whole process. I also know K to 12 is no silver bullet; other areas for education reform are equally pressing: classrooms, teachers’ pay, textbooks. I am, for one, a persistent advocate of alternative learning systems. But we need to start somewhere, and be ready to face emergent difficulties because not all cures are painless, after all.
I write this publicly because I believe most of these arguments apply not only to Pisay but also to other educational establishments in the country, given that all will be affected by K to 12. And with this I wish for our educators more strength and creativity, and for our children more challenges in learning and more time to enjoy life on campus. For them to make the most of it, for even 12 years can go by really fast.
Robert Francis Garcia works with Oxfam, a humanitarian organization, but the views expressed here are his own and not necessarily an official position. He has written books and articles on education and human rights.