DepEd's doubtful innovations

DepEd has been reputed to be innovative in outlook and logical in its approach to problems. For the past several years this agency has come with non-traditional strategies to improve the educational system, structurally and academically. To a certain extent, this flexibility is good because it makes the system responsive to contemporary needs. At the same time, it also opens the department to initiatives which have doubtful after-effects.

Remember the continuous progression scheme? Borrowing from western ideas, DepEd (called MEC them) adopted the practice of promoting pupils from one grade level to another irrespective of academic performance. The effect was a general decline in the quality of elementary grade finishers, which of course set back the department's thrust towards quality education.

Remember the bilingual policy initiated in 1974, which made Pilipino (Tagalog) the medium of instruction in five subject areas? Since its adoption the quality of basic education and college graduates has continuously deteriorated. The reason? By widening the pupils' exposure to Tagalog their learning of the English language is hampered, a tragic trend because non-mastery of this language makes learning a difficult task. This could be the reason why Filipino college graduates are less academically seasoned when compared to the graduates of other countries in Asia and in the West.

For some years now there have been complaints from non-Tagalog speaking groups about the unfairness of this program considering that by using Tagalog as tool subject school children in the Visayas and Mindanao are placed at a disadvantage. But DepEd has lent deaf ears to these people. Lately, however, the department has allowed the use of children's native tongue as medium of instruction in the first two elementary grades. But its bilingual mania (the use of Tagalog and English) continues to be observed in grade 3 and up as well as in the high school. When will the linguistic calvary of non-Tagalog speaking children end?

Precisely to put an end to this practice Congressman Eduardo R. Gullas filed HB 4701 entitled "An Act Prescribing the Use of the English Language as the Medium of Instruction in Philippine Schools". More than 200 representatives signed the Bill but despite this that legislative measure has not been passed to date. What a sad development for Philippine schools!

As if this is not enough, more sad news is in the offering. The new leadership in DepEd is reported to be serious in stretching the curriculum years to twelve instead of the current ten. Two justifications are given: One, that we (and Bangladesh) are the only country in Asia whose school years are abbreviated; two, that our college graduates would find it difficult to find employment in other countries. How acceptable are these rationale? At the risk of sounding like a broken record (I've written on this before), my reaction to these is that following what other countries are doing with their educational system may not be the best guide for us. Our own socio-cultural and economic situation should be factored in, and only after a serious study of such factors, coupled with extensive trialing, should the idea be adopted nationwide.

As for the need for our professionals to beef up their qualifications for jobs abroad, this is hardly a concern because only about 15 percent of our students get to finish college, and out of these, how many are going out of the country? Perhaps less than 3 percent. So why adopt a policy to cater to the needs of only very few? Besides, most college graduates are from middle or lower middle class groups, people who are sending their young to nursery or kindergarten schools where they spend 2 to 3 years of pre-elementary schooling. Hence, their academic exposure is actually 12 or even 13 years.

Limited resources considered, DepEd always prioritizes its programs. And what's the priority its present? You know it: More teachers, more classrooms, more learning tools, more health services, and others. Unless these needs are attended to first lengthening basic education to 12 (or even more) years would not improve the quality of our educational output.

Lately, the department came up with another innovation: A ban on students' homework on weekends. The idea is to give students more time to enjoy their off days especially with their families. Laudable. But how are we to know that without homework bonding will happen with parents and siblings? Besides, doesn't this move diminish the students' engagement and interest in their school work, and therefore lower the extent of their learning?

More innovations, anyone?

* * *

Email: [email protected]