After hearing that DepEd will implement the K+12 program for the next school year, a lot of parents are worried, panicked and dismayed about the news of additional school years for their children.
The K12 system is one of the most controversial programs of this administration and has been met with criticisms and resistance by parents, teachers, youth & student groups, and also other lawmakers. For those who are not familiar with the K12 program, it means that High school will be comprised of 6 years for those starting their freshman year in June.
Students and parents, however complain that it would be an added strain to a lot of middle class families and more so for poor families, whose priority is to spend for food and basic necessities, rather than school needs. This might eventually lead to more students not being able to finish even high school because of poverty and lack of funds.
I support the DepEd’s aim to improve the quality of education, BUT in my opinion, this is NOT the way to go about it.
As parents, we all aspire that our children will finish school and earn their diploma. However, adding more school years will definitely put a strain to most parents who are already struggling with the high tuition fees and paying for a myriad of things like school supplies, uniforms, field trips, school projects, extra activities, transportation and allowance. These are big expenses especially for those with 3 or more kids. Moreover, besides the financial strain, the K12 program needs to account for many other pressing concerns and issues such as:
- What about those children in the provinces who have to cross a river or go down a mountain, just to be able to attend school? Is it justifiable to prolong their ordeal and suffering so they could earn a high school diploma?
- For those parents in their 40’s with very young children, how old will they be when their kid’s reach high school? Or the more important question is: will they still be there to support their kids until college?
- The K12 program seems harsh to middle-aged parents. Let’s say you’re 43 now and you have a toddler, by the time he or she graduates from high school (add 1 year for nursery + 2 for prep + 12 for elementary and high school), you will be 58 years old. And if you’re 46 now, you will be 61 by then! Imagine the long financial and emotional strain many families will have to endure.
- Also, more years in school can cause boredom and burnout for the kids, which could translate to a higher dropout rate.
I believe that it’s also wise to assess the current private school system before the DepEd jumps into this K12 program. For those in the private school sector, before the K12 program, our kids would have gone through 1 or 2 years of toddler classes, then nursery, plus 2 years prep/kinder, plus 7 years of gradeschool, plus 4 years high school. These translate to already 14 years of studying or more! What if our children go to good, reputable schools, and not to forget those attending IB (International Baccalaureate) world schools, can you still say that they are getting mediocre educational training?!
Parents invest their hard earned money for their children to attend these schools because of the quality of training and education, and the belief that these students would gain admission to some of the most respected universities in the world. Now, if DepEd is so gung-ho on implementing this program, shouldn’t it be on a case to case basis? Do these schools really need the K12 program?
Now, let’s look at the public school system in our country. Yes, there’s definitely a need to improve the quality of education is this sector. But is adding more school years for students and more burden to parents the solution?
I don’t think so. For me, K12 is NOT the solution.
I think DepEd, should focus more on the QUALITY of education, by strengthening the Math, English and Science curriculums. And the MOST immediate and important factor to be addressed first is the shortage of classrooms and teachers. How can you give quality education when a lot of public school students attend school for only a few hours a day because of lack of facilities and human resources?!
I also believe that instead of using the budget for the K12 program, they should use this to increase the public school teachers’ salaries (some teacher’s resort to side-line selling to augment their income), give them better benefits/incentives, and send them abroad for trainings. DepEd should also build more classrooms, provide enough school and teaching supplies (as some teachers even use their own money to buy materials), update old and outdated reference books, and also modernize the school system by buying more software for computer studies. These are more productive ways of using the DepEd’s budget.
… and so the debate continues… Should the government put its limited resources on the Enhanced K-12 Basic Education Program. Mommies and Daddies, what’s your side on this? Should the government implement this program?
Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments (no haters please) and cast your vote on the poll.
Or for those who want to validate if there is really a correlation between the length of schooling and students’ performance, maybe this excerpt from a write up I read can help you more:
“According to results of the TIMSS, the length of schooling does not necessarily mean better scores. In fact, some countries with the same or shorter school cycle garnered the highest scores while those implementing the K-12 model or more years of schooling got lower scores.
According to a study released by former Deputy Education Minister Abraham I. Felipe and Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE) Executive Director Carolina C. Porio, the DepEd’s arguments are “impressionistic and erroneous” because there is no clear correlation between the length of schooling and students’ performance.
The said study shows that fourth graders from Australia had respectable TIMSS scores despite having only one year of pre-schooling, while Morocco (two years of pre-school), Norway (three years) and Armenia and Slovenia (both four years) had lower scores than Australia. South Korea, which has the same length of basic education cycle as the Philippines, was among the top performers in the TIMSS, while those with longer pre-schooling (Ghana, Morocco, Botswana and Saudi Arabia, three years) had lower test scores.
Test scores of Filipino students, meanwhile, were lower than those garnered by all 13 countries with shorter elementary cycles, namely, Russia, Armenia, Latvia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Moldova, Italy, Egypt and Iran.
In the high school level, Singapore that also has a four-year high school cycle, got the highest score. Ironically, thePhilippines got a lower score together with countries that have longer high school cycles likeSouth Africa,Chile,Palestine,Morocco andSaudi Arabia.
For the pre-college level, the Philippinesalso got a low score, but so did the United States, which has a 15-year basic and secondary education cycle. Students from Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong, all with shorter education cycles, got higher scores than America students.” (Source: http://thepoc.net/thepoc-features/politi-ko/politiko-opinions/10020-k-12-philippine-education-system.html)
Reminder: Pls. comment on this blog page and NOT on the Voting or Poll page. Comment box is right after the post. Thanks 
Please Vote Here:
Recent Comments