Noynoy on education

Nobody really wants our basic education cycle to be the shortest and most inadequate in the world. Although we put on the defense mechanism that we compensate in quality what we lack in quantity, we all know deep inside that our high school graduates are clearly shortchanged by the government. Our 4th year high school students are too young and too undereducated to enter the job market immediately after graduation.

In the LP letter to me reacting to my column of Jan. 7, Noynoy mentions one of the main reasons we have to follow the international norm of a 12-year basic education cycle. “With a 12-year cycle,” Noynoy says, “even those who do not have the ambition or interest to go on to university should have enough basic education to prepare them for the world of work. At 18 years of age, high school graduates should have the tools and the emotional and mental maturity that would make them better prepared for work than 16-year olds graduating under a 10-year cycle.” (He could have added money to ambition and interest.)

Even under previous administrations, the Department of Education consistently asked that two more years be added to the free education offered by the government. Every Philippine president so far, however, has refused to add the two years because of the enormous strain they will put on the national budget. After all, there are about 2 million students entering basic education, and even if only about 860,000 reach 4th year at the current retention rate of 43 percent, that is still a lot of students going into two more years of high school. At the current ratio of one teacher per 60 students, that translates into 28,000 new teachers for the two years, in addition to new classrooms and textbooks. (I computed the figures for 5th and 6th year high school, but if we used Grade 7 instead of 6th year, the figures would even be worse, because there would be 1.32 million students reaching Grade 6 at the retention rate of 66 percent.)

Can a Noynoy administration solve the problem of financing? Noynoy thinks so. He says: “Since the majority of our children attend public schools, the cost for tuition and direct schooling is borne by the State under our policy and not by the family (though the family will have to answer for the incidental costs which are much lower than tuition). These additional costs are affordable (given how this Administration has used or rather, misused, funds) and absolutely necessary to make.” In other words, the government would have the money if not for mismanagement and corruption.

Noynoy does not give how much money the government will save if it seriously tried to stop corruption, but we have the figures from other sources. The Ombudsman estimates that corruption cases have reached more than P1 trillion since the office was formed. Non-government sources estimate losses of at least P100 billion per year. While he was president, Joseph Estrada admitted that P24 billion was lost to corruption every year (that figure does not include the millions he was later convicted of plundering).

Whether losses due to corruption add up to P24 billion or hundreds of billions per year, there is no doubt that there is money available to government if it would just curb corruption. Noynoy is running on a platform of integrity. He is counting on his personal example shaming corrupt government officials to “moderate their greed.” Even if he succeeded only half the time, he would have enough money to fund the two extra years of basic education.

That, of course, is a big if. Jesus and Muhammad were models of integrity, but not all their followers are moderating their greed; the only religious dogma with indisputable empirical evidence is original sin. Closer to home, no one can accuse Cory Aquino of stealing, but the corruption of her Kamag-anak Inc. (in Louie Beltran’s immortal phrase) was legendary.

Nevertheless, on paper, the Noynoy proposal makes a lot of sense. Ideally, the government should indeed fund the extra two years. Noynoy says: “This is a problem of basic education (too little); therefore it should be fixed at the basic education level. It covers subject matter that the rest of the world covers at the elementary and secondary levels. Therefore, the solution has to be dealt with at the elementary and high school levels. Hence, the 12-year cycle. Further, by making this investment at the basic education level, the costs (e.g. both public education spending and private sector education contracting) is rightly in the hands of government as its constitutional responsibility to provide basic education for all Filipinos.”

I agree, but only in theory. In practice, however, I am not sure that the theory will work. I know, from my personal experience in government, that it is not that easy to moderate greed. Corrupt government officials do not all steal for the love of stealing nor even to lead the life of the rich and famous. Many of them have mortgages, children to feed and send to school, and staff members to help out. Since even the President earns only about P60,000 a month, you can see where the real problem lies. (To be continued)