yeah! but that’s just 1 variation. your solutions are just basically the same as mine in general.

#1 – we want basic 12 year education. but my “advanced” version injects vocational/skills subjects during those 12 years. i’m just using the japanese model of 6 years elem. , 3 years middle school, and 3 years upper HS.

but thats not the whole picture. the easiest way for transition is keep the 6yrs elem and 4 yrs HS. and make the 2 yr vocational school compulsary before going to college.

i hope by this time any variation be somewhat understood.

#2&#3 – implied. its a given. since time immemorial those 2 concerns has been raised many times. In my studies, I had experienced 4 to 5 revisions in the curriculum.

#4 – yes! after telling you my platforms, err…. my proposal (but no one the Phil. Gov’t would bother anyway) of focusing the DepEd budget for the 12 basic years that would inevitably lead to your motherhood statement, err i mean conclusion/solution.

Seems we differ mainly in details, which is not really a problem. I’d characterize the fundamental components of the solution as:

1. Narrow the focus of government funding and administration to the basic (11-12 year) education period.
2. Improve the curriculum.
3. Improve the quality of the students (by improving the curriculum, making testing more accountable & determinant, etc.).
4. Realign resources outside the government budget to more effectively provide continuing education opportunities.

1. Yes! I’m expecting that reply: “its too short” . My posts however are incomplete, as we can still fund the 3 year-vocational course on selected areas.

Now! if you’re 18-yrs-old w/ employable skills then you can work. for those who want to pursue college while working, just in case you have no parents/sponsor to enroll you on college.

2. Also you were saying that “it’s going to leave a lot of deserving but financially-incapable kids out in the cold,” the same thing is happening already today even if there is funding for college. remember that the norm here is 16-yrs-old after HS graduation.

There are lots of scholarships today that are available but not availed due to the fact that most of them (students) are not deserving (poor quality). We have this law for study-now-pay-later-plan. Also there are scholarships for Science and Technology.

We can also enable a law that would require private schools to adopt poor but deserving students, though they may not be honor student but they can finish the course unscathed; lets 10%-20% of the total populace. or maybe a College Voucher system to compensate for the TAX Exemptions derived by these private schools, according to existing Philippine laws that it is a form of subsidy. In short these “subsidy” must be translated to enroll poor-and-deserving-students.

3. If we can simplify the proposal, 12 years basic education and the gov’t funding is merely focused on them. then we have a better figthing chance.

I wouldn’t do it that way.

…..
…..
…..

Oh, you want more? Sorry, I kind of channeled mlq3 for a moment.

I think that is far too short a time period. Kids are immature when they leave school under the present system, and in your model you have compulsory education ending at about age 15. Do not kid yourself that the number of students not continuing past that point will not grow tremendously if funding is largely removed — that’s a fact of life, or at least is as long as all other things remain equal. The one positive to it is that provided the education in those nine years was solid, the smaller number that would be continuing on would be better quality students. But it’s going to leave a lot of deserving but financially-incapable kids out in the cold, AND at an age where they are legally not employable under standards rules, and most likely not emotionally equipped to be so.

I would add two years to your nine: 6 elementary, 3 of basic secondary education, and then 2 of either vocational education or college-preparatory (subject to the student’s preference AND a legitimate assessment test), and make all of that compulsory. Take pre-grade one (nursery and kindergarten) and college out of the hands of DepEd, and let private institutions or province/municipality/NGO-supported schools handle it. Still going to be a lot fewer students able to go to college, but college will actually mean something, instead of being the rough equivalent of a high school course in the US or Western Europe.

And fire everyone connected with DepEd immediately, with prejudice, and recruit administrators from among the large number of foreign education experts that are already in this country, or Pinoys who have extensive training and work experience in education systems overseas.

another way of doing my proposal is that:

http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262008&page=8

http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262008&page=11

- we can even shorten Elementary and High School as 6 yrs. and 3 yrs. each respectively.

- we can set another 3 yrs. is a compulsory vocational course that would be chosen by the students before college.

- if effect only 9 years na lang would be funded by the gov’t and then 3 years vocational should be provided by the parents or other sponsors. we had already resolved the 12 yrs. basic education before college which is 6 yrs elem. + 3 yrs. HS + 3yrs. compulsory vocational course. after that 12 years, only then a student can be accepted for college.

- that 9 years you have a HS grad ready for unskilled labor. implicitly, after completing that 12 years you have people who are grads that are ready for SKILL job types.

I guess this comes from the observation that education is gravely underfunded in the country. Add to that the funds being shanghied by nasty DepEd staff. Someone even told me that DepEd is the most corrupt gov’t agency in the land, because of the phantom schools and materials being cited for funds. At least your proposal Zadkiel might do for basic education… though I agree with Ben, we need more meat for specific skills. College.

That’s an interesting proposition, one that I think has some merit. I think what the argument against it probably would be is that it would reduce the opportunities for students to go to university. I’m not sure how I would respond to that argument. Any ideas?

I had posting time and time again:

1. Due to the limited funds we have. Why don’t we just fund public ELEM and HS. let State U’s go fend themselves.
2. With more fund pouring in to basic education, it would result to more facilities and infrastructures.
3. More money to give a pay raise to Public School Teachers.

Thus resulting for more quality education.

LOOKIT, YA’LL. EDUCATION IS NOT IMPORTANT IN THE PHILIPPINES. BOXING IS!

Boxing is education-optional, academically-not-supported whose skills are honed in prison rumble and street fighting. Yet, political dignitaries went out of their way to go to Vegas to support Manny Pacquiao. When Pacquiao came home with the belt he was met like it was V-Day in Manhattan confetti and confetti everywhere. Even idiot peryodistas croon and splash article dedicated to Pacquiao.

whereas, poor, educator Pinaflorida, CNN-man-of-the-year didn’t even get a peepsqueak from idiot peryodistas who claimed to be tliteraties and 4th estaters. The idiot peryodistas are perpetuating ignorance.

ha!ha!ha!ha1ha!ha! EDUCATIO N IS THE LAST THING IN THE MIND OF THE FILIPINOS. 1st thing is Sex and 2nd thing is boxing and third is inuman.

ha!ha1ha!ha!ha!ha!

KAWAWA NA MAN SI PINAFLORIDA……..

Hi guys! Great post!

Now that I’ve made Better Philippines smirk, I’d like to log in my reaction to the post.

I think the biggest problem in our country is that most Filipinos are poor and this is where all of the other problems arise. Most Filipinos are poor, not because they lack money — they lack something more crucial, OPTIONS. They lack options because they lack education.

Our people lack education because we lack schools, teachers, books, and everything else you ought to find in an institution of learning. Compounding these inadequacies are health and nutrition issues that are common among public school children.

One wonders how can we lack so many things in our public education system when the government is supposed to be setting aside the largest chunk of the budget to fund the education system? Of course, we know the answer to that — when a school building (two classrooms with 1 CR) can be built for P600,000, the DepEd spends P1,000,000.

Anyway, to solve this problem of chronic inadequacies, I think Senate Bill 2402 or the Health and Education Acceleration Bill is pointed in the right direction. The bill was filed by Senator Gordon and it lays out a detailed plan of how to bail out our education system.

One of the first thing’s that gets people’s attention as far as the bill is concerned is that it imposes a windfall tax on the text messaging revenues of cellphone companies and this is where discussion of the bill has hit a snag.

On one hand, we have undernourished, sickly school children barely getting the education they need to create better options for themselves, and on the other, we have cellphone companies that earn around P2,000,0000,000 a day from text messaging — perhaps less, but certainly above 1 Billion. I was actually at a hearing where Mon Isberto groaned and practically threw a fit in trying to defend his company’s windfall earnings.

Anyway, beyond the sourcing of the funds, the bill lays out a detailed proposal of how to bring out public education to standards that match those of Singapore, Malaysia, and Hongkong.

First, the bill proposes the creation of the HEAP corporation with a board composed of members of the academe and parents — which will administer the funds of the program. The Board will be composed of officials from Ateneo, UP, La Salle, and perhaps UST; it will also have people from Parent’s Teachers Associations, etcetera. The DepEd Secretary will be in the board, but probably not as Chairman.

In its first year, the HEAP corporation will supply all the inadequacies of the public school system. It will build all the classrooms, hire teachers and principals, provide computers and lab equipment, etcetera. It will also fund a feeding program and provide of doctors and nurses as well as vaccinations and medicines for free.

In its succeeding years, the program will shift from providing classrooms (assuming that there are already sufficient numbers of classrooms) to providing better training for teachers and establishing scholarships for college students.

At or near the end of the 5 year implementation period of the program, it will send 10,000 Filipino students to study in Ivy League universities.

I don’t think I’ve described all the details of the bill here, but if you want to read it first before critiquing, here’s the link to a copy of the HEAP bill..

http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/76666903!.pdf

I don’t know if it can be duplicated here, because it is a difference in fundamental ideals. American kids are taught to explore and to question things. American kids are taught (albeit sometimes to a degree that might not be realistic or healthy for everyone) that personal achievements and opportunity are a matter of choice. The family and cultural environment of individuals moderates those ideals to an extent, certainly, but not so much as here, where kids are taught not to question authority (elders, the Church, etc.), and accept as fact everything those authorities tell them.

to franc,

no problem. wasn’t even sure about what i was saying in the first place and was just exploring ideas and theories.

anyway, i’m intrigued by this statement by benK :

“I do think the American environment and the education system, for all its problems, does prepare kids much better for independence; whether they take the first opportunity or not is guided by other things.”

i am interested to know what it is exactly about the American environment and education system that makes this possible. i think it’s worth identifying those positive factors and examining them if they can be duplicated here.