Turn bad product into good

In the private sector, any executive or manager who pushes to implement a multi-million project without the necessary research and business plan will most likely be dismissed as irresponsible or branded as reckless. It defies logic and financial wisdom to push for a project unless you have done “complete staff work,” have done the numbers and have a business plan.

In complete contrast to this, many legislators and government officials make proposals or rush legislation through Congress without doing the equivalent complete staff work. They conduct maybe two to three consultative hearings, solicit inputs mostly from the very people lobbying or supporting the proposed legislation or projects, but rarely do they challenge or tear the proposals to pieces in order to determine the logic, business sense or possible impact of their proposal.

When we did an episode on AGENDA (Cignal TV) on the return of the ROTC program last Monday, the first thing I asked a legislator and a Department of Education undersecretary was if they already have a curriculum or specific modules for the four semesters that Grade 11 and 12 students will have to enroll in. Senator Wynn Gatchalian said the proposed legislation is based on a general framework featuring safeguards as well as a grievance mechanism to prevent abuses. Usec Pascua of the DepEd said there were modules made after President Duterte expressed his desire to restore ROTC. But when I pressed for specifics, I was told that the curriculum development group of DepEd was still working on the details.

In other words, the return of ROTC is being pushed through the Senate in spite of the fact that legislators and government officials can’t show us what subject matters will be taught under a program that has largely been criticized and rejected by the youth for being unproductive, oppressive and irrelevant. The government will spend hundreds of million of taxpayers money based on a general framework or an outline. In street terms, we call it “Drawing”, something imaginary or people “winging” the plan as they go. Truth be told the curriculum or teaching modules are just the end product of what is supposed to be deep inter-disciplinary research aimed at educating, equipping and empowering students on a particular discipline, as well as a business plan on the cost, source of funding, sustainability and economic benefit in returning the ROTC program. It is VERY irresponsible to roll out a program that has not been analyzed and scrutinized and expect children to bear the brunt, and taxpayers to shoulder the cost just because Digong Duterte and the Lolos of the Philippines want the return of ROTC. 

One serious mistake of the proponents of the ROTC program is their desire to subject grades 11 and 12 to weekly military training for two years or four semesters. The fatal flaw in this proposal is that in the original ROTC program before 2001, first and second year college were the chosen population because their academic workload was not as heavy and crucial as those of 3rd and 4th year college students. The proponents mistakenly presumed that because grades 11 and 12 are the age equivalent of the 1st and 2nd year college kids, then, they should be the one undergoing ROTC. Grades 11 and 12 students today are actually in an academic state where they are facing the greatest amount of studies, challenge and workload. Under K-12, these last two years determine the outcome of all their efforts and financial investment. This simple oversight exposes how shallow and reckless the ROTC proposal is. What needs to be addressed is the content of the program, not who should undergo the program. The DepEd seriously compromises the well-being and academic success of students by imposing a load on their already overburdened minds and backs! Don’t prioritize your political subservience over the academic outcome of our children!

Had the proponents of ROTC and the AFP made an attempt to reach out to the private sector, they might have learned that they could actually “have their cake and eat it too”. First recognize the fatal and historical flaws of the ROTC program and understand why the student or the “customer” rejects the product. No amount of argument or debate will make a bad product good. You can have a good product but if it is not what the “customer” is willing to buy or wants to buy, it’s still a bad product.

The AFP and ROTC proponents should have first developed a program or curriculum that is relevant, useful, gives employment possibility and most importantly FUN. It can be done if the military just tried. I pointed this out to General Ed Arevalo when he guested on the show. A basic requirement of products and programs is a MENU that addresses the questions: what activities or subject matter will I take, what’s in it for me, what will I be doing, what levels of difficulty will I face, how much will this cost me, what are the fun points in the program. The MENU would instantly tell critics if it will be four semesters of marching under the sun or not. Fun is not about going easy, it is about making people enjoy or appreciate what they go through, even the challenging ones.

General Arevalo said that the program will include swimming, map reading, navigation, rappelling, marksmanship etc. A graduate of the ROTC could use it for future enlistment in the military and the police, among others. All that is good but it’s only a start. If the AFP, President Duterte and the proponents of the ROTC want to bring the program back, it cannot simply be on their terms. Call a friend, get professional help, repackage and rebrand the program and then let students show each other that it can be fun!

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]