COCOPEA NORTH LUZON CONSULTATION November 27, 2010 at the University of Baguio, Baguio city K+12 POLICY FRAMEWORK:

Pessimistic, Optimistic or Realistic? by JUNIFEN F. GAUUAN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, ALDERSGATE COLLEGE Cellphone: (0920) 2658211 E-Mail: aldersgate@hotmail.com, Websites: www.aldersgate-college.com, www.cie.aldersgate-college.com, www.acade mics-software.com I. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY IMPACT ANALYSIS The formulation of Policy for the K+12 Education System requires rigorous system s analysis. Many patchwork of issues, opinions and statistical analysis have alr eady been presented by so many sectors in so many meetings and consultations. B ut what is more important to see now is the entire picture, the whole tapestry o f Cause-Effects and Costs-Benefits that the policy, if adopted, will create. Actually we did this partially today. But it seems we also need the help of Educ ation Economists to prepare a comprehensive policy impact analysis and simulate varying policy options under different policy assumptions and conditions. II. DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, DIFFERENT POLICIES Different conditions generate different assumptions, which in turn create differ ent policies. The success of any policy depends on the correctness of its policy assumptions. Taking this fact into consideration, should we make policy assumptions based on current realities? Or should policy be based on policy conditions we would want to happen, but which may not exist by the time we start implementing the policy? The proposed K+12 Education System poses a very challenging case, in as far as s electing the most realistic policy assumptions is concerned. These policy assum ptions and the appertaining conditions affecting them are as follows: 1. Increasing Basic Education from 10-12 years automatically expands the ed ucational financing requirements for infrastructure, personnel, learning resourc es, training and development. These requirements can only be achieved if the fol lowing conditions are met: 1.1. Enough National Government and Local Government Budget (LGU) Budgets are made available. Currently, national and local government budgets are already strained to the lim it and are averting deficit spending. 1.2. Families can meet the financial burden for the additional 2 years of stu dy to (a) Pay for Daily Allowance of Students and Currently, families are reeling in financial difficulties. And adding 2 addition al years could even increase drop-out rates because school-age members of poor f amilies usually sacrifice their studies to economize on daily school allowances so that their siblings can continue their studies. (b) Contribute to under-funded School programs, services and expenditure ite ms (e.g., laboratories for information technology, sciences, vocational arts; mu ltimedia resources; maintenance and operating expenses for repairs and utilities , etc.) Currently, the government policy on universal access to basic education disallow s contributions by parents and students to complement under-funded public sch ool budgets. Even students from families who can afford to pay contributions are thus exempted from giving their share. 1.3. Operational efficiencies and synergies are created within the public sch ool system to create savings which can be re-allocated to more essential program s. Currently, administrative wastes and leakages permeate the public school bureauc racy. 1.4. The educational policy must not destroy the financial viability of priva

te Schools. Otherwise, students which may be orphaned by Private School closures and program terminations will simply create new financial and logistical burden s for the public schools. In this connection, expanding the coverage of the governments educational subsid y to elementary, secondary and tertiary students in private schools is still on e of the best ways for reducing educational costs, since most private schools, c olleges and universities have lower per capita educational costs compared to pub lic schools, colleges and universities. 2. Increasing Basic Education from 10-12 years requires a higher level of o rganizational core competence which can only be achieved if the following condit ions are met: 2.1 If the core competencies of secondary schools administrators and teacher s can be upgraded to the level of Technical-Vocational and College administrat ors and faculty. The Senior High School Curriculum requires the core competencie s of Technical-Vocational and Tertiary Schools (Junior College). As they are no w, our secondary schools cannot manage the senior High School Curriculum. And this has brought a counter-proposal for the offering of two (2) additiona l pre-collegiate years (i.e., a Junior or Community College/Tech-Voc option) i nstead of the (2) additional Senior High School years. From the point-of-view of many educators, the Junior or Community College/Tech-Voc option is less disrupt ive, more manageable and financially viable. This is because existing high schoo ls need not invest in additional expertise, buildings, facilities and equipment. And existing Colleges and Technical-Vocational Schools already have the educati onal resources and faculty to absorb students for the two (2) additional years o f study. 2.2. If Teacher Competence can be enhanced to use cost-effective tools and me thods, such as information and communications technologies and multimedia. However, currently, it is estimated that in the public schools, 70% of students are tech-savvy, while only 30% of Teachers are. 3. Increasing Basic Education from 10-12 years requires a re-programming of the curricula and re-engineering of the entire educational system. This re-prog ramming and re-engineering starts from the pre-school, elementary, secondary, th rough the technical-vocational, and tertiary education levels; aligning them in a step-ladder progression to achieve international professional standards ma ndated for various industries and socio-economic sectors. More specifically, 3.1 We need to re-program curricula in the different educational levels by s treamlining them to remove obsolete and redundant courses/subjects/contents. We also need to continually benchmark and update curricula based on global standard s. Current educational policies and standards are so rigid they prevent the swift a nd continuous updating of curricula, course contents and syllabi which is necess ary in coping-up with the rapidly changing expertise benchmarks created by globa l competition. We cannot even invent our own new and cutting-edge courses because our governmen t educational agencies will recognize only those already offered and recognized abroad. So we are always at the tail-end of educational innovation. Furthermore, our government educational agencies are splintered into different k ingdoms. There is a need for a Supreme Authority in the Education Sector to orch estrate the synchronization and integration of desired policies, curricula, prog rams among DEPED, TESDA, and CHED. And this requires organizational re-structuri ng. Table 1, Curricular Synchronization, shows that it is difficult to formulate p olicy just based on general principles and statements. The formulation of educat ional policy (what to do?) that is feasible and acceptable to stakeholders res ts on the viability and suitability of the educational programs (how to do it?) designed to operationalize it. We must therefore deal with specifics at the sam

e time that we are evolving a general education policy. Table 1 Curricular Synchronization PRE-SCHOOL & ELEMENTARY SECONDARY TEC-VOC UNDERGRADUATE & GRADUATE 1. Define the International Competency Standards required for each Grade Le vel. 2. Define a streamlined curriculum for each Grade Level. 3. Define the core knowledge and skills that each Subject of the curriculum must develop 4. Define the upward Learning Continuum required to achieve the entry-level Secondary learning competencies. 5. Define different curricular streams of Elementary School preparation ( i.e., regular, accelerated) 1. Define the International Competency Standards required for each Year Level. 2. Define a streamlined curriculum for each Year Level. 3. Define the core knowledge and skills that each Subject of the curriculum must develop 4. Define the required entry-level Secondary learning competencies. And de fine the upward Learning Continuum required to achieve entry-level Tec-Voc and Undergraduate learning competencies 5. Define different curricular streams of Secondary School preparation (i .e., General comprehensive, Physical Sciences, ICT Sciences, Arts & Music, Busin ess & Entrepreneurship, Technical & Engineering) 1. Define the ladde rized International Competency Standards required for each Skills Competency Clu ster. 2. Define a streamlined curriculum for each Skills Competency Program. 3. Define the learning competencies required to achieve industry acceptance in each Skills Competency Course 4. Define the required entry-level Tec-Voc learning competencies. And defin e the upward Learning Continuum required to achieve entry-level Undergraduate l earning competencies or industry employment 1. Define the ladderized In ternational Competency Standards required for each professional cluster. 2. Define a streamlined curriculum for each Professional Degree Program. 3. Define the learning competencies required to achieve industry acceptance in each Professional Degree Program. 4. Define the required entry-level Undergraduate learning competencies. And define the upward Learning Continuum required to achieve entry-level Graduate learning competencies or industry employment 3.2 After synchronizing curricula we need to re-engineer the educational mac hinery so it will be capable of implementing the educational programs effectivel y and efficiently. I am using the word re-engineer because aside from re-structu ring educational agencies and organizations we need to overhaul educational mana gement and teaching-learning processes to facilitate faster, more economical, and higher quality learning. The implications of faster, more economical and higher quality learning are: We must allow parts of the whole to become creative and move rapidly rather than moving the immovable whole, itself. In this connection, we must Give real academic freedom and autonomy to responsible and qualified educational institutions. Decentralize and devolve relevant basic education functions of National Agencies to Local Government Units. This includes co-management of public schools and di rect budgetary allocation from local government funds. This may include abolitio n of Regional Offices and the creation of Regional Desks to coordinate programs and budgets. Full adoption of information and communications technology and use of multimedia resources in both educational administration and teaching-learning processes. Creation of a National Multi-Media Resources Center where all modularized course

syllabi, e-books, e-journals, presentations, films and learning materials neede d by teachers can be downloaded through the internet. And learning resource crea tors from among teachers, authors, and scientists from around the world can also contribute learning materials. 4. Increasing Basic Education from 10-12 years requires that proper conside ration of student needs, interests, capabilities and differences be made in the formulation of policy. For example, if the achievement standard upon which the two (2) additional high school years is calibrated, is based on the expected academic performance of AV ERAGE STUDENTS, what options are there for RETAINED STUDENTS, LOW ACHIEVERS and HIGH ACHIEVERS? Do we need to impose year-level achievement tests as a requirement for determini ng student retention, promotion and acceleration? Will there be a program for specialized instruction of RETAINED STUDENTS? Will there be a program for specialized remediation of LOW ACHIEVERS? Should HIGH ACHIEVERS be given the option for academic acceleration so they can finish basic education earlier than K+12 years? Should we therefore allow many roads to climb the mountain of basic education? Or should we just permit one (1) superhighway? It is the belief of some educators that the K+10 Education System failed because it lacked 2 more years of study. Of course this is one reason. But the bigger r eason why K+10 Education System failed is because of poor educational inputs and processes which surely would not yield positive outcomes. So the biggest issue the K+12 Education System must address are its pre-requisit e educational inputs and processes. If these are not given solution, the K+12 Ed ucation System policy is already doomed from the very start.