SPEECH: Debate

The Implementation Of The K+12 Systems In The Philippines

The Effects of Broken Homes Among
Early Teenagers to their
Academic Performance

A Research Paper Presented to
Dr. Bienvanido Nepomuceno
Mapúa Institute of Technology

In partial fulfillment
Of the requirements in
Sociology
(SS11-A4)

by:
Jonathan M. Nartates

March 2011

Abstract
K+12 educational systems are the additional years to secondary level. This research contains some information about the curriculum of K+12. Interview, books and newspaper were the researchers’ major instrument in gathering information and was augmented with other data collected through readings.Studies cited by the researchers have also shown that the country’s education program is equivalent to the 12-year education cycle followed abroad except that it is being completed in only 10 years. The respondents of this research are the high school students who will experience the implement of K+12 educational systems. These researches analyze and study what will be the effects of the K+12 educational systems to the country, parents, and students. The K+12 plan will cost an estimated annual investment of P30 billion over five years. This amount will increase the Department of Education share of the national budget from about 12 percent to 14 percent. But the Department of Education had received as much as 18 percent of the budget before. Countries considered poorer than the Philippines invest in K+12 for their children. Filipino children deserve no less.

Introduction
Rep. Raymond Palatino, a member of Kabataan Party list said: The new system would translate to added burden to parents who could barely send their children to school. For povertystricken country such as ours, the proposal to add two years to basic education is a question of survival.

This K+12 will need more allowance to implement this program. Then the parents need to work harder for them to support the studies of their children. But this program will help the students to add additional knowledge and for...

The PROS (which is basically the side of the government, well-heeled and articulate leaders from the academe, the business community and the media):

1. “Enhancing the quality of basic education in the Philippines is urgent and critical.”
2. “The poor quality of basic education is reflected in the low achievement scores of Filipino students. One reason is that students do not get adequate instructional time or time on task.”
3. International test results consistently show Filipino students lagging way behind practically everybody else in the world. In the 2008 mathematics exam, for example, we came in dead last.
4. “The congested curriculum partly explains the present state of education.” Twelve years of content are crammed into ten years.
5. “This quality of education is reflected in the inadequate preparation of high school graduates for the world of work or entrepreneurship or higher education.” If ten years were adequate, how come employers do not hire fresh high school graduates? How come most high school graduates flunk the UPCAT?
6. “Most graduates are too young to enter the labor force.” Since most children start Grade 1 when they are 6 years old, they do not reach the legal employable age of 18 when they graduate from high school today.
7. “The current system also reinforces the misperception that basic education is just a preparatory step for higher education.” Why prioritize the minority of high school graduates that go to college?
8. “The short duration of the basic education program also puts the millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), especially the professionals, and those who intend to study abroad, at a disadvantage. Our graduates are not automatically recognized as professionals abroad.” The best examples are our engineering graduates, who are condemned to international jobs not befitting their professional status due to our not having a 12-year basic education cycle.
9. “The short basic education program affects the human development of the Filipino children.” If we believe that 17-year-old high school graduates are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually mature, why do we require them to get parental consent before they get married?

The CONS (which are basically the madlang people whose pocketbooks would be adversely impacted by the proposed additional 2 years of basic education):

1. Parents have to shell out more money (for transportation and food) for the education of their children.
2. The government does not have the money to pay for two more years of free education, since it does not even have the money to fully support today’s ten years. DepEd must first solve the lack of classrooms, furniture and equipment, qualified teachers, and error-free textbooks.
3. We can do in ten years what everyone else in the world takes 12 years to do. Why do we have to follow what the rest of the world is doing? We are better than all of them. Filipinos right now are accepted in prestigious graduate schools in the world, even with only ten years of basic education.
4. As far as the curriculum is concerned, DepEd should fix the current subjects instead of adding new ones. The problem is the content, not the length, of basic education. As an editorial put it, we need to have better education, not more education.
5. A high school diploma will not get anybody anywhere, because business firms will not hire fresh high school graduates.
6. Every family dreams of having a child graduate from college.
7. While students are stuck in Grades 11 and 12, colleges and universities will have no freshmen for two years. This will spell financial disaster for many private Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
8. The drop-out rate will increase because of the two extra years.

“The government has not yet shown the arguments of the opposition to be fallacious,” writes Cruz.

On the other hand, Cruz characterizes the opposition (anti) as being “very vocal airing its arguments not only in newspapers, on radio, and on television, but even in the parliament of the streets.”

“As of this writing,” Cruz writes, “I have not heard the opposition rebut the arguments of the government. In fact, as far as I can see, they have refused to even listen to the government.”

Since this is a public debate, Cruz contends that “we have to move from constructive speeches to rebuttal”.

I think we really don’t have a compelling need to listen to rebuttals. Enough yakety yak already! What we need are objective, actual (empirical) cost-benefit and pedagogical studies to support or debunk the claims of either side. A promising start would be to read “Length of School Cycle and the ‘Quality’ of Education” written by Felipe & Porio published in the Philippine Education Research Journal (PERJ).