Fireworks in the GE debate

I wrote columns on the General Education (GE) program last September in response to bills that would reduce university education to three years by requiring completion of all GE subjects in senior high school.

I lamented that CHED has no written position on the matter and ended the column by saying that “it is now time for education stakeholders to start a national debate on the matter.”

Well, CHED just issued a draft of Policies, Standards and Guidelines (PSG) on the Reframed General Education Curriculum, reducing the mandated GE curriculum to 18 units. Fifteen units for five GE courses (including Labor, Ethics and Rizal) and three units for an institutional core. Autonomous universities can add another 18 units, subject to CHED quality controls.

An angry academic community has shown it is ready to debate.

Academics, professional organizations, students and political kibitzers are having a heyday lambasting CHED’s proposal. The criticisms are coming from all directions and all political persuasions. I have never seen this kind of unity across education stakeholders since the controversial Marcos-era Education Act of 1982.

Last week, I attended the CHED-organized “public consultation” meeting, and the pattern was consistent. On the screen, I only saw “angry face” reactions. Online participants questioned why a “public consultation” included an implementation mechanism.

Some critics accused CHED of intruding on the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed academic freedom. They argue that HEIs have the right to determine what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may teach. While CHED is empowered to set minimum standards, it cannot prescribe, control or redesign the intellectual architecture of a curriculum.

Subject matter experts question why ethics is being integrated with other subjects, or how integrating Rizal with Philippine history can comply with the mandate of the Rizal Law.

Equally telling is the statement by experts from discipline-based CHED technical panels that they were not consulted. Several CHED TPs have officially opposed the reduction in GE.

Serious questions have been raised about faculty displacement, as the proposal does not specify how many faculty members will be affected or what their future will hold.

This week, education stakeholders marched to CHED demanding a stop to the new GE, replacement of the GE technical panel and a real bottom-up consultative process for reform.

Two days later, CHED announced that it is postponing the implementation to 2028 and will consult with education stakeholders.

All of these could have been avoided if CHED had been more careful and consultative in rolling out its proposed GE reform. During my tenure, this issue was discussed at CHED, where I emphasized caution and outlined four key steps for GE reform. First, conduct a policy review of the GE transition to senior high school and the current GE curriculum to guide reform efforts. Second, facilitate consultations between the TP on GE and the discipline-specific TPs (history, philosophy, humanities and sciences) to develop the reformulated GE.

Third, compile an inventory of faculty affected by these changes to ensure their rights and welfare are protected. Fourth, submit the proposed reform to nationwide public consultation.

Clearly, we have not learned from the problems encountered in the implementation of the K-12 law. We continue to rush reforms without the benefit of serious policy evaluation.

New policies should be developed based on thorough policy evaluation. They should not be solely driven by bureaucrats’ preferences, politicians’ demands or assertions from congressional commissions.

The GE program is the heart and soul of university education. Any revision must start with an exhaustive discussion on how the GE program shapes the values, competencies and learning outcomes of Filipino students.

The current GE framework was developed in the 1960s in response to the challenges facing the Philippines. Times have changed. Yes, we need to revisit the GE program. But this must evolve in consultation with the academic community and must respect the exercise of academic freedom of higher education institutions.

The transfer of GE subjects to senior high school was intended to prepare students for university. Evidence shows that this did not happen.

Shouldn’t we first study what happened to the previously downloaded GE subjects before reducing the current GE curriculum again?

I have not seen an evaluation of the current GE curriculum, which was revised following the K-12 law. The discipline-based technical panels are assessing the new PSGs for over a hundred degree programs. Considering these changes, how can a “reframed” GE be created?

Without these studies, why then is the current GE being reduced? Is it to keep in step with DepEd, which threw out the “overcrowded SHS curriculum” in favor of five general core subjects? Is it to appease politicians who have been badgering CHED to reduce the length of university education?

If you need to produce a skilled workforce faster, do so through TESDA, credit transfers and micro-credentials. It is not through mechanically decimating the GE curriculum.

Critics say between 60,000 and 90,000 faculty members will be affected by this proposal. CHED has clearly not done its homework because it is not contesting this number. A reform proposal must compute funding to address job losses, teacher retraining and the development of a new syllabus and curriculum.

“Reframing” the General Education program is clearly not a top national priority at the moment. CHED faces significant challenges in the next two years if it intends to relaunch its Reframed GE program.