Is K – 12 for or against enhanced careers and critical citizenship?

Change is essential in life.  We have to change in order to get better.  We need to adapt to changing times, or else we will be rendered dysfunctional or irrelevant.  But a change that does not take into account the totality of the interrelationships of the system that it wants to alter or transform, and does not have a broad understanding or appreciation of the implications that it could usher, can only but lead to even more dysfunctionality.  Worse, it can even undermine the very goals it wants to achieve.

 

It is in this context that the K - 12 curricula that have been adopted for basic education and the necessary adjustment they require of higher education have to be seen.  This is made more important in the context of the fact that they have set as their lofty goals the betterment of the careers of our graduates through innovative curricular designs that would also enhance their capacity to become critical thinkers.

 

At the outset, let me state that, in principle, I personally support the addition of two more years in basic education.  It is a change that we need in order to make our educational system more comparable with global standards.  While adding two more years would entail additional costs to the State and additional burden to parents, we do not have a choice but to bite the bullet and make the needed change, lest we become the only country in the world with a 10-year basic education curriculum.

 

This is not to dismiss the concerns of those who raise the issue of the lack of quality teachers, inadequate teaching materials and insufficientinfrastructures.  But I do not subscribe to the idea that we have to first address these before we can shift to a curriculum that requires one year in kindergarten and 12 years in basic education.  I believe that excellent teacher training, adequate learning materials such as books, and sufficient infrastructures such as school buildings with state of the art learning technologies are necessary ingredients that can be achieved with the implementation of a revised K - 12 curriculum.  In fact, shifting to K - 12 can only but provide the necessary impetus for us to seriously embark on a radical transformation of our teacher education curriculum, and to invest time and money in developing appropriate teaching and learning materials and the associated infrastructures required.

 

Of course, there is the anti-globalization argument made by the left against the change. The left raises the specter of a commoditized educational system that becomes a burden to ordinary citizens, with some even raising the isolationist stance of not being worried about the Philippines being left out of the global train.  Education, as adherents to this stance would argue, is an obligation of the State to its people to become national resources for its own interests, and not simply as tradable goods to be exported and have to pass global standards that are dictated by forces that turn knowledge into a commodity. 

 

While I disagree with the over-demonization of globalization by many in the left, I find as valid their concern that too much focus on market forces as the main driver in curriculum design can only but lead to disastrous consequences that can turn a well-meant innovation into a botched-up attempt. This has serious consequences not only to careers of graduates and of affected teachers, but also to our critical capacity as citizens.

 

I fear that an over-emphasis on English, Math and Science, all identified as necessary to make the Philippines globally competitive, can lead to a neglect or marginalization of Filipino, the Social Sciences and the Humanities.  I have yet to see a full picture of the emerging curricula in all levels of basic education, but there are already things I discovered that are worrisome.

 

A citizen that is adept in English, Math and Science, but has no critical understanding of our historical, cultural, social, and political experiences can only but become a professional without a soul.  

 

The teaching of the Constitution, which is in fact required by the Constitution itself, will be introduced only as a module in Grade 4 at an age that may not be appropriate for such a complicated text, and will only resurface in Grade 12, in a course on Politics and Governance which however will be taken only by those students who will go on the professional track in the social sciences.  Hence, a deeper understanding of politics can only now be realized by those who will venture into the social sciences and the humanities in college, but not by those who will go through the vocational-technical track, or even those in the professional track but in the sciences and engineering.  

 

Furthermore, the syllabi of the social sciences, particularly that of Politics and Governance, but also seen in the more general social science course to be taken in senior high school, appear too ideologically-conservative, without mentioning contentious social and political processes, and the role of revolutions and resistance.

 

The curriculum of Basic Education, from Grades 1 to 10, is mainly the responsibility of the Department of Education (DepEd).  However, technical panels on various disciplines under the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) were consulted in the crafting of the curriculum for Senior High School or Grades 11 and 12.  However, I have been informed that while content experts in the disciplines were consulted, the final decision remained with DepEd, and the process by which such was reached was far from transparent, and in some instances, ran contrary to the recommendations of the technical panels.

 

Take the case of Political Science.  The concerned Technical Panel has recommended the inclusion of the legal framework for studying politics, and of topics on social and political resistance, as well as identity politics.  However, such recommendations disappeared in the final draft of the curriculum guide approved by DepEd, with members of the Technical Panel in Political Science clueless as to who made the decision to delete that part and for what reason.

 

A curriculum that is slanted towards nation building without providing a critical understanding of the counter-narratives and the contrapuntal ruptures does not adequately provide the critical lens needed by the citizens to put to task and interrogate their government. 

 

Such critical eye would be needed, for example, to see how the crafting of the K - 12 law has seriously left out a more robust security blanked for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which will be severely affected.  The same critical lens is also needed to expose how inconsistent CHED is in throwing a monkey-wrench at HEIs as they are now forced to adapt to the changes brought about by the implementation of the K - 12 curricula.

 

Since many of the General Education (GE) courses that are required to be taught in College are going to be down-loaded to the Senior High School level, a new and revised GE was developed by CHED to be prescribed to HEIs.  On the progressive side, these new courses are noted as innovations in the sense that they are all to be taught as multi-disciplinary and learner-centered courses.  However, CHED Memorandum Order 46 Series of 2012 has the effect of denying multi-disciplinarity a space in academic departments.  

 

Under this CMO, a faculty member with an undergraduate degree in Political Science, but has a Master’s degree in Journalism and a PhD in History could no longer teach in and be a part of a Political Science Department, nor a Faculty in a Journalism School.  The person can now only teach in a History Department, despite the fact that she has also knowledge in Political Science and Journalism, and can very well be tapped to become a scholar of political history of media and communication, which is a multi-disciplinary area of expertise that crosses disciplinal boundaries.

 

This is a classic case of the left hand already taking away what the right hand will give.

 

Furthermore, the new GE Curriculum is crafted to look at language as simply a tool for teaching, and not as a domain by which political and social identities are shaped.  While there is an indication that all the GE courses can be taught either in English or in Filipino, there is no compelling requirement that this has to be done, thereby giving many Universities and Colleges the leeway to just use English.  In an educational system whose discourse is crafted in such a way that the main driver is global competitiveness, where the main justification for adopting the K - 12 is to enhance our place in the global labor markets, a failure to require that some sections should be taught in Filipino will most definitely orphan Filipino and drive it to the margins, something ironic since it goes against the grain of the Constitutional requirement to intellectualize Filipino.  Any sensible analyst would know that the best place to intellectualize Filipino will be at the level of higher education.  And Filipino could not be intellectualized by simply making it as medium of instruction, and even worse, just an optional medium that may not necessarily be seriously taken in the absence of a directive.

 

One way Filipino could be intellectualized is through a language-based GE course that would talk about the interactions between culture, language and identity, which could have been titled “Kultura, Wika at Pagkatao/Pagka-Pilipino.”  Having such a course would have provided an opportunity for our College students, regardless of their majors, a critical understanding of alternative narratives to our process of nation building.  But unfortunately, CHED opted not to have a required GE course on culture, language and identity.

 

But perhaps, the most serious failure of the whole system, particularly in the crafting of its enabling law, is when it failed to take into consideration the enormous implications the adoption of K - 12 would have on real people’s sources of livelihood.  

 

One implication of the K - 12 curricula is that for two years beginning 2016, there will be no new entrants in all Colleges and Universities.  Fortunate are the State Colleges and Universities whose sustenance rests on government appropriations.

 

But woe would descend on private Colleges and Universities which rely on students’ fees to pay for their bills and the salaries of their faculty and personnel.  Two years without new students can only but place these academic institutions in a state of crisis that can only but lead them to retrench some of their affected personnel.  And once again, to be hit hardest are those who are teaching General Education Courses such as English, Math, Science, PE and of course, once again, Filipino.

 

The failure to appreciate the enormity of the problem was summed up in the argument of someone who made a presentation in our University on how HEIs can react to the foreseen drought years in their enrolment. It is given that faced with a looming budget deficit brought about by lack of new student enrolment in 2016, and the sub-optimal levels of enrolment in the next few years after, the faculty members who will have to go first are the part-timers.  I was horrified to hear that this scenario is being talked lightly on the assumption that part-time faculty members have full-time jobs in the private sector anyway and are just taking up part-time teaching as sources of additional income.  I was horrified for the simple reason that those who made this decision apparently failed to appreciate the fact that not all part-timers are lawyers, accountants, doctors and professionals who have regular sources of income, and are just either bored and hence need to teach, or have to respond to a calling or a hobby to share knowledge to the young.  In my College alone, and in our Department, a significant majority of the part-timers rely on teaching, sometimes in more than one University or College, as their sources of livelihood.

 

I assume that this mind-set of not taking seriously the impacts of K - 12 on the careers and livelihoods of part-time faculty members, and those others who teach at the College level who will be affected, is pervasive.  I am not surprised, therefore, that the law establishing K – 12 failed to prescribe transitory provisions that would have provided stronger support mechanisms, and protection clauses to secure the welfare of the affected personnel whose job security is now threatened.   I am thinking of legislated government-sponsored soft-loans program both to affected faculty and institutions, and of scholarships, fellowships and research grants for those who will have fewer teaching loads on the lean years.

 

Eventually, the implementation of the K - 12 curricula, and the attendant adjustment at the level of higher education, will be judged on the basis of how they comprehensively addressed the challenges and the opportunities associated with their goals of enhancing the careers of our graduates who will also possess the capacity for critical thinking. Right now, there are so many things that are simply not right.  Many things are not being done in a comprehensive, coherent and consistent manner. 

 

This may be the undoing of K - 12.  It is a change that simply wanted to bring in the good things, but will be hampered by its failure to appreciate the totality of the system it wants to improve.K - 12 may, in the end, increase the competitiveness of our graduates.  But without adequate safeguards to protect those that will be affected, it can only be achieved by sacrificing the careers of many of my colleagues in academe.

 

An emphasis on English, Math and the Sciences may make our technicians and those in the sciences and engineering, who I presume will form a significant number of our graduates, an efficient and world-class labor force.  

 

However, if it continues to blindside the Social Sciences, the Humanities and Filipino in the name of global competitiveness, and will expose only those who will become professionals in the social sciences and the humanities to a critical understanding of their identities as a people, there may be tragic consequences on the critical citizenship of those in the scientific and technical professions and vocations.

 

Without a robust and critical understanding of their history, social structure, politics and political processes and political resistance, and without knowledge of how to critically interrogate authority, they will have a deficient understanding of who they are, will be unable to know when laws become terribly unjust, and would not have adequate knowledge of the fact that they can actually throw out a government that they do not deserve, or deny morons and the corrupt a place in a government that they should.  Hence, we will have, as an example, engineers who will be impeccable in their capacity to build state of the art roads and bridges, but would not simply care if these will be leading us to nowhere.

_____________________________________________________________________________
The views expressed in this article are those of the author, a former dean of De La Salle University, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.