More on Noynoy

In his letter to me, Noynoy Aquino relates education to poverty.

His plan, says Noynoy, “gives all Filipinos access to more education because it is focused on basic schooling starting at kindergarten. From world historical experience, more basic education – particularly, high school – is a major poverty-reduction strategy. In this country, we will never beat poverty with such a short basic education cycle. Let’s put aside our misplaced national pride and learn from the rest of the world what it has done to grow and develop their people.”

I agree completely. In fact, the Asian Development Bank describes the correlation between poverty and education this way: “The relationship between education and poverty reduction is very clear: educated people have higher income earning potential, and are better able to improve the quality of their lives. Persons with at least a basic education are more likely to avail of a range of social services, and to participate more actively in local and national government through voting and community involvement. They are less likely to be marginalized within the larger society. Education empowers; it helps people become more proactive, gain control over their lives, and widen the range of available choices. The combination of increased earning ability, political and social empowerment, and enhanced capacity to participate in community governance is a powerful instrument for helping break the poverty cycle.”

All the candidates say that education will be their highest priority if they get elected. None of them, however, except for Noynoy and Gibo, has given us specific actions they will take. Everyone, except for Noynoy and Gibo, has merely mouthed motherhood statements about education being a problem, but has not put forward any solutions.

Gibo has proposed that at least one year be added to tertiary education, making all college courses at least five years long. Noynoy argues that Gibo’s solution does not solve the problem of inadequate education. Says Noynoy, “Gibo Teodoro thinks that the answer is to increase university schooling by an additional year. That extra year is nothing more than remediation and makes university an extension of high school which is not the solution. It also brings down the quality of our universities and mixes up their objectives. Further, this also shifts the responsibility for paying for the additional year on to private households because university education, even in state colleges, is not paid for by the government and therefore is not free. Lastly, this strategy also excludes those who have not finished a full basic education cycle. Hence, those that drop out before completing high school have no chance at this additional year of education.”

Neither Gibo nor Noynoy has got it completely right, as far as the additional undergraduate year is concerned.

The Bologna Accord demands that we have three full years of major undergraduate subjects. Right now, we do not have three full years (except for engineering and other five-year courses), because the first two years of the usual four-year course is taken up by General Education (GE). That is one reason that there is an urgent need to revisit GE and to limit it to one academic year. Otherwise, every student will have to take five years (two for GE, three for majors), an unnecessary burden for students and parents.

Gibo is wrong in thinking that we should add another year of GE to college. That does not satisfy the Bologna Accord.

Noynoy is wrong in assuming that adding two years to basic education also solves the problem of the missing year of tertiary education. More precisely, his silence about tertiary education means that he has not thought through the whole problem.

In fact, there are a number of education issues that still have not been addressed by any candidate. Here is a random list.

Until what level should the mother tongue be used as medium of instruction? DepEd has already ordered that it be used, one year at a time, starting with Grade 1. Until what grade or year?

How can our schools comply with the Bologna Accord? The Washington Accord? The Dublin Accord? The Sydney Accord? There are a number of these international agreements that the country has signed or wants to sign.

How do we solve the mismatch between undergraduate studies and industry needs?

How can we address the warning by UNESCO that we will fail to meet our Education For All (EFA) commitments?

How will we help our students fare better in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)?

Is it time to return to a monolithic system of education (one agency, rather than the three agencies at present)? Have the goals of EDCOM (that divided the Department of Education into three) been fulfilled?

Is it time to put all basic education under DepEd (right now, DSWD, DOST, SUCs, and even CCP have control over some schools)?

How should government deal with accreditation, which is by definition a non-government process? How can our schools be internationally accredited?

What do we do with the huge number of Filipinos that have not finished formal schooling?

What do we do with illiterates?

What is the balance between legislation and academic freedom, when it comes to curricula and mandated subjects?

The next administration will have to answer these questions.