Education and Government

TRANSFORMATION OF THE PHILIPPINES' BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM: K-12

Accordingly, the Philippines is the only country that has the shortest basic education system, 10 years, in Asia. Too short to contain all the necessary lesson that should be taught to students for them to really understand and internalize.
Few months before the classes has started for the school year 2012-2013, an issue about a change in the basic education system, from the 10 years basic education system to the K-12 which has 12 years basic education, has become a big fuss. It is one of the most controversial issue for the previous months and got a lot of reaction and comments from almost everybody including teachers, politicians, government officials and employees, parents and even students.
We can hear a lot of comments and reaction around us regarding the issue. Some parents say, this additional 2 years in the basic education is an additional burden to them or an additional expense. Some also say that our government is so ambitious to adopt the foreign educational systems while in fact that we can't afford. They say we don't have enough numbers of schools, classrooms, teachers, materials, and training for teachers. Some also say the government is just preparing the people or students for future job openings abroad where instead of serving the country but they are serving foreign lands while it is so obvious in the Philippine Universities and Colleges that a lot of foreigners are coming to finish their studies for them to go back to their country and serve.
Listening to all the reactions and comments from concerned citizens, I was convinced to agree with their opinions.
I agree that it would be an additional burden to the parents who are sending their children to school. When we talk about burden, it simply talks about money and expanses. The money used to send the students to school are hard earned money and the additional two years on basic education is really costly. The money used to send the children to school are hard earned but it can be earned while the quality of education and it's long term effect to the students can't be bought and is more valuable.
The thought about the previous years where we still use the 10-year basic education confused me because we were able to survive it. On the other hand, is the 10 years basic education enough to provide competitive knowledge to all high school graduates? Or even college graduates? Are our graduates college or high school competitive enough nationwide or globally?
I also agree that having this system's change is being ambitious because we can't afford. The government can afford but I think being ambitious is a mechanism to challenge our leaders on what they really can do about the quality of education in the country. I also believe that it would be better for the government to have the change where they can have the government funds spent for the change rather than watching the corrupt leaders sit on their positions and earn the funds without doing anything for the people. The shortages in the country's educational needs including classrooms, and materials are challenges for us, citizens and voters, to see who among the government officials are doing their job. Lastly, the lack of teachers is not a problem because we have a lot of education graduates, who passed the LET, who are currently unemployed. The problem is the hiring process. For public schools and positions, I personally observed that the applicants are being hired not based on what they know or on their competency and qualification but more on who they know.
When it comes to the reason why they need to add the two more years in the basic education, it is for more training and knowledge for employable skills. Some say, why is it more on jobs needed abroad? It is because the government should consider the employment of the people maybe not here in the country but abroad. I just hope that the people will consider the "brain circulation", where once the people will have the enough knowledge and resources abroad, they'll come back to the country to share and serve the next generation.
Back to the transformation of the educational system, this change has been an issue since the early 90's but was never placed into action until this school year.
I also believe that in order for us to be successful or the country to grow economically, we should sacrifice little things for the welfare of the people. With the change, if we focus on how much or on the money we are going to spend, it is really costly. But if we disregard the cost, as long as the government is effective and efficient in implementing the change, then the next generation or the students who will pass through the change will enjoy the effect. We may not see the positive effect now but hopefully we will be able to see it in the future generation.