'K+12, PRAY FOR US'
(First of a series)
Leading a country of trendsetters, the Aquino administration is firm to pose change to the challenge and questions of transparent governance anchored on political agenda for the common good.
Being an advocate of education himself, P-Noy sets a 10-point agenda for basic education to carry out the administration’s promise of change-for-the-better-oriented and transparent governance. In living such tagline: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap,” such agenda have to be magnified a thousand times as it has been going through down the road.
The first of President Benigno Aquino’s 10-point agenda for basic education is the expansion of the basic education to a 12-year cycle or better known as the enhanced K+12. Since DepEd’s announcement about this proposed K+12, this attempt has stirred a lot of debate among education stakeholders and other institutions in the society.
This radical change to be implemented by DepEd is to visualize the Philippine educational system as a dynamic, learner-centered and purpose-driven. Basically, the highlight of this change is the addition of two more years in the basic education system. This new curriculum will be implemented by the school year 2012-2013. Apparently, the basic education system of the Philippines follows the K+6+4+2 pattern comprising a universal kindergarten, six-year elementary, four-year junior high school, and two-year senior high school.
As to purpose, the enhanced K+12 is envisioned to decongest the present overcrowded curriculum. This overcrowding results to “Information overload” on the part of our young Filipino learners.
The 2010 Ramon Magsaysay award-winning physicists Bernidos have disclosed that the curriculum must be enhanced as to quality, not on the quantity. That is, the Bernidos suggested for curricular programs that cater the needs and demands of the society. New programs should be introduced, and those unnecessary electives should be eliminated. Furthermore, curriculum planners must have it secured that learners should be exposed to this “laboratory of life” by formulating curricular programs that enhance the functional literacy and practical competencies of the learners. This full responsibility lies to our teachers who take a lion’s share in this curriculum-implementing body.
In the course of proposing this change in the basic education, many good and not-so-good points (pros and cons) have emerged in different forms and sizes, to wit:
a. This K+12 is necessary to keep pace with other countries in terms of the number of years of the pre-university education system;
b. There is a need to decongest the curriculum by strengthening the “necessary” and eliminating the “unnecessary”;
c. The low achievement test scores among our students in international competitions, particularly in trends in Science and Mathematics, suggest a need to review the curriculum;
d. This proposal eats up a lion’s share in our national budget. The DepEd should see to it that every centavo allocated for these agenda be spent wisely;
e. It would be another burden for most parents to send their students to school for two more years;
f. Graduates in the 10-year pre-university education cycle are not that ready for the world of work;
g. Diploma earned after senior high school is not that inviting for employers considering the increasing figures of the “unemployed” and the “underemployed”;
h. And, many others.
Through our DepEd led by Sec. Armin Luistro, our government takes us to a glimpse of ideal society inhabited by the “intellectually-elite” who are going to propel forward our knowledge-based economy to its place in the world arena.
Anyway, there’s no harm in trying. For as long as there’s political will backed up with collective support among our education stakeholders, this enhanced K+12 basic education program is going to be a risk worth-taking.
Leading a country of trendsetters, the Aquino administration is firm to pose change to the challenge and questions of transparent governance anchored on political agenda for the common good.
Being an advocate of education himself, P-Noy sets a 10-point agenda for basic education to carry out the administration’s promise of change-for-the-better-oriented and transparent governance. In living such tagline: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap,” such agenda have to be magnified a thousand times as it has been going through down the road.
The first of President Benigno Aquino’s 10-point agenda for basic education is the expansion of the basic education to a 12-year cycle or better known as the enhanced K+12. Since DepEd’s announcement about this proposed K+12, this attempt has stirred a lot of debate among education stakeholders and other institutions in the society.
This radical change to be implemented by DepEd is to visualize the Philippine educational system as a dynamic, learner-centered and purpose-driven. Basically, the highlight of this change is the addition of two more years in the basic education system. This new curriculum will be implemented by the school year 2012-2013. Apparently, the basic education system of the Philippines follows the K+6+4+2 pattern comprising a universal kindergarten, six-year elementary, four-year junior high school, and two-year senior high school.
As to purpose, the enhanced K+12 is envisioned to decongest the present overcrowded curriculum. This overcrowding results to “Information overload” on the part of our young Filipino learners.
The 2010 Ramon Magsaysay award-winning physicists Bernidos have disclosed that the curriculum must be enhanced as to quality, not on the quantity. That is, the Bernidos suggested for curricular programs that cater the needs and demands of the society. New programs should be introduced, and those unnecessary electives should be eliminated. Furthermore, curriculum planners must have it secured that learners should be exposed to this “laboratory of life” by formulating curricular programs that enhance the functional literacy and practical competencies of the learners. This full responsibility lies to our teachers who take a lion’s share in this curriculum-implementing body.
In the course of proposing this change in the basic education, many good and not-so-good points (pros and cons) have emerged in different forms and sizes, to wit:
a. This K+12 is necessary to keep pace with other countries in terms of the number of years of the pre-university education system;
b. There is a need to decongest the curriculum by strengthening the “necessary” and eliminating the “unnecessary”;
c. The low achievement test scores among our students in international competitions, particularly in trends in Science and Mathematics, suggest a need to review the curriculum;
d. This proposal eats up a lion’s share in our national budget. The DepEd should see to it that every centavo allocated for these agenda be spent wisely;
e. It would be another burden for most parents to send their students to school for two more years;
f. Graduates in the 10-year pre-university education cycle are not that ready for the world of work;
g. Diploma earned after senior high school is not that inviting for employers considering the increasing figures of the “unemployed” and the “underemployed”;
h. And, many others.
Through our DepEd led by Sec. Armin Luistro, our government takes us to a glimpse of ideal society inhabited by the “intellectually-elite” who are going to propel forward our knowledge-based economy to its place in the world arena.
Anyway, there’s no harm in trying. For as long as there’s political will backed up with collective support among our education stakeholders, this enhanced K+12 basic education program is going to be a risk worth-taking.
Comments
Post a Comment