For their well-meaning mission vision to improve tertiary education, the Commission on Higher Education may deserve a pat for a nice try. At least, CHED with jurisdiction over public and private higher education institutions (HEI), is fully aware of inferior graduates churned by the system.
Simplistically, CHED proposed tacking 2-year pre-university level for professional training, plus a year for accountancy, various engineering courses, architecture, education and nursing as 5-year degrees. The 6-year elementary, plus 4-year secondary, plus 2-year college prep, plus additional year for specified tertiary fields, entail longer education under the formula of "10 plus 2 plus 3". Counting the 2-year prep/kindergarten for under-7 kids, make a total 15 years.
But is improving the quality of basic and higher learning that simple to accomplish, as sure-fire and effective reform from the present accumulation of ignorance and virtual illiteracy of the graduates? Is simply lengthening the school tenure the answer to the academic rot?
Opinions have been ventilated in national and local outlets, and none so far favorable to CHED's reform proposal. One critique says it's just a knee-jerk reaction to a worsening set-up, lacking exhaustive and in-depth studies to address its cause and effect variables.
Kumpare Laddie Dioko ably opines that "more college is not the answer", but only makes college education more expensive beyond the reach of average Filipinos. Besides, lengthening college is not a guarantee of a raised professional ability; and that, 4 years college is adequate under quality instruction and quality facilities. And, quality teachers, as the foremost factor.
Oddly but true, many parents have the skewed idea that children with mediocre IQ should pursue teaching, thus: "Si Neneng amo lang pakuhaon sa pagka-maestra kay dili kaayo maayo'g grado". Wow, such misconception is two-edged and both wrong. One is that the teaching profession is for the dullards or the mediocre. Two is the misconception that the higher the IQ, the lesser competence as a teacher which is utterly wrong. The brighter the teacher, the richer lessons and teachings he imparts especially by his incidental discussions or integrated teaching.
Trying to improve the flawed educational system by mere pruning of the rotting trunk at its top is not an assurance of a reinvigorated sprig to grow into a new tree unless the roots and the pruned trunk are still strong, healthy and remediable.
The first 6 years of elementary and 4 years of high school - the basic education - have not produced quality graduates over the years. The elementary is preoccupied with too much extra-curricular activities, and too many subjects. What used to be a focus of the 3 R's, with reading and writing as 40-minute subjects, are mere passively integrated lessons now.
There's now no more "push and pull" and "indirect oval" writing exercises as prerequisite for the Zaner Bloser type of writing, to habituate the pupils' wrist movement. And for reading, there used to be that effective syllabic approach and sound drill which has been abandoned.
Thus, elementary pupils and secondary graduates - and even in college - seldom have passable penmanship; and, as a rule, are non-fluent and non-comprehending readers and learners. In national tests to gauge their knowledge and skills, and in later civil service tests and prof career/board exams, passers are almost always less than 10%.
The deterioration of teaching-learning process is the piling-up of many factors… Take that Soriano "continuous progression" even the dullards got promoted to the next grade. Another, the bilingual medium of English and Tagalog - actually trilingual adding the local dialect - and also the college Spanish before. And the plethora of secondary extra-curricular activities, like sports, physical education, the clean and green, boys and girls scouts, intramurals at various levels, etc. clutter the teaching-learning process. (To be continued)
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com