The Philippine education system has long been the subject of scrutiny and reform, with initiatives spanning decades aimed at enhancing its quality and accessibility. From the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education in the pre-martial law era to the establishment of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM 2), the nation has persistently sought solutions to its educational challenges. However, recent assessments, including the EDCOM 2 Year One Report titled “Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education,” highlight systemic failures that continue to impede progress.
One of the most significant reforms in the past was the restructuring of the former Department of Education and Culture into three separate entities: the Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). This move aimed to provide focused attention on basic education, higher education, and technical-vocational training, respectively. While this structural change was well-intentioned, the persistent decline in education quality, as evidenced by poor Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores, indicates that structural reforms alone are insufficient.
The EDCOM 2’s recent findings underscore the urgency of implementing purposive reforms to address the learning crisis. The Year Two Report, “Fixing the Foundations,” emphasizes the need for foundational changes to rectify longstanding issues. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, co-chairperson of EDCOM 2, has called for urgent measures to strengthen the educational foundations of Filipino learners, highlighting the critical nature of the situation.
In this context, House Bill 11213, known as the Education Pathways Act, has been proposed to offer alternative educational tracks for junior high school graduates. The bill allows students to choose between a university preparatory program and a technical-vocational program, aiming to provide flexibility and address diverse learner needs. While the bill’s intent to alleviate financial burdens and offer tailored educational pathways is commendable, it also presents potential pitfalls.
One concern is that allowing students to bypass senior high school may lead to gaps in essential competencies, leaving them ill-prepared for higher education or the workforce. Additionally, the implementation of such pathways requires robust support systems, including career guidance and counseling, to ensure students make informed decisions aligned with their aptitudes and interests. Without these supports, the reform risks perpetuating existing inequalities and failing to achieve its objectives.
Educational organizations, such as the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations of the Philippines (COCOPEA), have expressed positions on various education policy reforms. Cautioning against “reform fatigue” they are signaling that, instead of enacting new laws, it would be more beneficial to carry on with the EDCOM 2’s reform programs.
Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the DepEd and the TESDA are presently headed by a former senator and a former representative, respectively, who were also involved in shaping the EDCOM 2 report. Hence, they are primed for the implementation of priority reforms that will enable the country to regain its footing in terms of global competitiveness.
In conclusion, sustaining educational reforms requires a balanced approach that considers structural changes, curriculum development, teacher training, and student support services. As the Philippines continues to navigate its educational challenges, it is crucial to learn from past initiatives, heed the recommendations of expert bodies like EDCOM 2, and remain vigilant against potential pitfalls in proposed policies.
Only through such a comprehensive and thoughtful approach can the nation hope to reverse the decline in education quality and ensure a brighter future for its learners.
