In Second Thoughts, Manila Bulletin, Jan. 26, 2009
BAGUIO, Philippines – The 5-year college program, the centerpiece of the PTFE (Philippine Task Force for Education) master plan for tertiary education, is not a new idea. Over the years, on their own initiative and, more recently, in compliance with CHEd directives, colleges have required a minimum of 10 semesters or five years to complete the curricula in certain fields of study.
Engineering and architecture, and subsequently, other courses such as accountancy, pharmacy and physical therapy, have become 5-year programs. In other countries, these courses can be completed in three or four years. But students in these countries have typically completed 12 years of schooling before undertaking their professional education.
In the Philippines , the fifth year was a coping mechanism to accommodate mandated General Education subjects, some of which were legislated into the curricula by Congress, and to compensate for its 10-year basic education program, two years short of the international norm. Because of this deficit, our students are taking in the first two years of college subjects covered in other countries during the last two years of pre-university education.
Since PTFE cannot dispute the deficit in pre-college preparation, it has taken the approach of treating the entire period between primary school and the completion of the undergraduate degree as a seamless continuum. For most undergraduate courses, the entire education cycle would consist of 14 years (6 years of elementary, 4 years of secondary and 4 years of college).
According to PTFE, Singapore and Europe , under the Bologna Accord, allow the award of undergraduate degrees after a cumulative 15 years of schooling. But some of our courses already require a total of 15 years (6-4-5) of schooling before the grant of a degree. PTFE then jumps to the startling conclusion that our educational system is not really behind those of Singapore and Europe . This is a major leap of faith.
PTFE proposes to convert all undergraduate degrees into 5-year programs, starting with those subject to board or licensure examinations. After 10 years of basic education, the first two years of college will be restructured to deliver basic, general education subjects. The last three years would then focus on the professional subjects. PTFE hopes that the implementation of this 15-year cycle (10-2-3) will establish international parity for our educational system.
With this PTFE plan, the 5th year in college, introduced as a coping mechanism, to redress the deficiency in basic education, becomes acclaimed as desirable policy. This recalls, in fact, the pattern of the Arroyo Administration’ s approach to education. Despite the rhetoric of speechwriters proclaiming the government’s commitment to quality education, the operational thrust is to do things on the cheap. The watchword appears to be "puede na," we can make do.
Is there a lack of classrooms for the pupils? Raise the class size from 40 to 50 students per class. Allow for double shifts. Reduce the standards and thus reduce the shortage. In fact, DepEd school authorities routinely resort to these options to cope with contingencies. But elevating coping mechanisms into policies delays initiatives to provide appropriate, definitive solutions to recurring problems.
The improvised policies then have to be given a positive gloss to make them palatable to the public. Thus, at the First Biennial National Congress on Education last year, the President proudly proclaimed that "by 2006, we had achieved our more ambitious medium-term plan target ratio of one classroom for every 50 grade school students on double shift.
Similarly, we are now told that we are mistaken in thinking Philippine college students are disadvantaged because they take subjects, which are taught in high school in other countries. Participants at a regional CHED forum were favored with this explanation. Teachers handling these subjects in high schools abroad will not normally have post-graduate degrees. Filipino students, because they take these subjects in college, have the benefit of instruction by teachers with M.A. and Ph.D. degrees. Ergo, they are better off taking the high school courses in college.
The argument is ingenious; people may actually buy it. The Presidential Task Force appears to have accepted it. Perhaps, what leads us to this kind of conceptual contortions is a reflection of another coping mechanism in our culture. Reluctant to displease authorities by rejecting what they propose, we contrive to find something good about it. The grapes we did not receive are sour, the lemon forced on us is actually sweet.
We need this kind of survival strategy, perhaps, to be able to soldier on despite the frustration of the dictated done deal. But excessive reliance on this coping mechanism leads to the danger of self-deception, which may help us survive but not to progress,