According to Wikipedia.com,”Education is a social science that encompasses teaching and learning specific skills. Also, intangibly and profoundly, it is the imparting of knowledge, good judgment and wisdom.” Education has as one of its fundamental goals the imparting of culture from generation to generation. It is the best way to improve one’s living standards or social standing. Just like Ramon Magsaysay who was just a poor mechanic and Joseph Estrada who was a third-year engineering dropout, who both became the president of the country. The better your educational attainment, the better is your economic standing going to be. In Cambodia, for instance, 81.7 percent of the wealthiest 20 percent has had high school education. Only 5.2 percent of the poorest 40 percent has had secondary schooling.
However, in the recent statistical data gathered by National Statistical Coordination Board, 94 out of every 100 elementary graduates are not qualified to be in high school. Out of 100 pupils who start a Grade I, only 66 will graduate after six years. The 34 cannot because of sheer poverty, despite elementary school being free. Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus has been trying mightily to retrain elementary school graduates before they can get to high school. Some even suggest an additional year in the elementary education to enhance the knowledge and skills of the elementary students. But, is there really a need for such?
I personally do not agree with such proposal. As we all see, the problem lies with students themselves and in the learning environment where there are in. And the government should focus on this problem. I can raise four possible points why there should not be an additional year in the elementary years of students in the Philippines.
First is the quality of education in the Philippines. Philippines used to have one of the highest enrolment ratios of college-age population actually in school out of the total population. Not anymore. Among the Philippines’ top universities, none are among the top 25 in Asia. The best, the University of the Philippines, is in the lower 25 of the Top 50. Ateneo and La Salle are near the bottom of the Top 80. With poor quality schools that does not have care for there students, the Philippine students is on its way to nowhere.
Second are the expenses for the families of these students. Another year in elementary years means additional expense for the family. As of now, the cost of education to every family affected is P5,000 a year. There are 8.26 million families with children in elementary school. Assuming just five million graduate from elementary school a year, multiply that by P5,000, and you have a whopping P25 million in additional expenses for these families, not to mention the expense of the government. Even assuming one million Grade 6 graduates, the cost is still staggering—P5 billion a year in extra expenses. Poor families don’t have that kind of money. If all the congressmen and senators were to pool their pork barrel funds for one year, just one year, they would be able to send these kids back to school—for one year. It’s a big if—because our lawmakers look at their interest, not at the interest of the next generation. That is the difference between politicians and statesmen. The first group looks after the present, its present interest. The other group looks at the next generation. Perhaps, many of our congressmen and our senators are not educated enough to know the difference.
Third is the lack of well-equipped teachers. The proposal still will never solve the problem of having good teachers for our Filipino students. According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, as reported by the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics on its Labstat Updates (Vol. 7, No. 12, July 2003), the number of teachers who left the country every year to practice their profession abroad grew from 112 in 1992 to more than five times as many in 2002, with 586 teachers taking teaching jobs overseas. From 1992 to October 2002, 2,289 teachers were deployed abroad. Almost half (45.2 percent) went to teach in the United States; 18.2 per cent, in Saudi Arabia; and 5.9 per cent, in Brunei. In the last three years of the survey, the US alone accounted for more than half (55.5 percent) of the total deployment. Short-Term Solutions
The statistics prove conclusively that the fields of primary and secondary education in the Philippines are suffering acutely from brain drain. However, despite a large supply, many eligible teachers are not being employed by the educational system. Data from the Department of Education show that the number of the country’s elementary and secondary teachers, both public and private, remained almost the same within a span of ten years. From 433,701 in 1991, it increased by only 71,658 to 505,359 in 2000, for a growth rate of only 1.7 percent or 7,962 newly employed teachers per year. The country’s public schools accounted for 86.5 percent of the total teacher employment in 2000.
Compare these to figures released by the Professional Regulation Commission for the same decade (1991-2000), which show that 35,238 graduates on average passed the teachers board examination annually, out of which only 7,962 were absorbed by the educational system. Furthermore, in February of this year, the DepEd released an order adopting austerity measures through the non-filling of vacant positions, although its online newsletter dated April 2005 reported a search for 10,000 new teachers.
In its search for teachers, the DepEd is of course competing with foreign institutions. According to Bulatlat.com, US school districts need to hire around 200,000 teachers each year. But because fewer and fewer Americans want the job, private recruiters plan to place at least a million foreign teachers in American classrooms by 2007. The Philippines, with a system of education patterned after the US’s and high proficiency in English, is emerging as the chief source of recruits.
With only a little over a fourth of those eligible to teach gaining employment in the Philippines, the brain drain of teachers in elementary and high schools could in fact be a catch basin for the excess supply of teachers. But to see the brain drain as a solution rather than a problem is in itself a problem.
Lack of Teachers
The truth is, the number of teachers hired each year is insufficient to address the country’s needs in primary and secondary education. The new-hires cannot keep up with the fast-rising number of students. It is especially hard on the public schools where student populations are growing, as more and more students enter into the stream, some of them transferring from private schools. Owing to bureaucratic, financial, and logistical constraints, the hiring levels of public schools cannot keep up with the need. The result is a worsening teacher to student ratio. Figures from the DepEd show that as of 1991 the national ratio was 1:33. In 2000, it was 1:35. Latest data from the department show that in public schools, the teacher to pupil ratio in the elementary level for school year 2001-2002 stood at 1:36, while the teacher to student ratio in the high school level stood at 1:39. A quick count of enrollment in 2003-2004 indicated an alarming 1:42 ratio for public high schools. Extreme cases are experienced in highly urbanized areas where the classes swell to more than 70.
Consider also that those leaving for teaching jobs abroad are generally those with better credentials. For example, recruitment in the US must meet a federal mandate for “highly qualified” licensed teachers. Teachers seeking employment abroad still compete not only among each other but also against teachers from other countries, such as India, in terms of qualifications. Thus, the Philippine educational system is losing some of its most qualified teachers. This is especially true for high school teachers. High school teachers are required to specialize, i.e. have mastery of the subject they teach, unlike elementary education teachers who may teach all subjects. High school math subjects, for example, are ideally taught by an education graduate who majored in Math. When high school teachers leave, people with the same qualifications must take their place, and suitable replacements are not easy to find. The country also loses the investments it made on those teachers. For example, DepEd is reported to be developing the Science and Math teaching competency of its teachers through training and scholarships. This enrichment may very well translate into better qualifications for their applications abroad. While the DepEd is also reported to be tightening its recruitment policies so that only the best qualified will enter the system (Education Post, Vol. 37, No. 3, April 16-30, 2005, www.deped.gov.ph), the bigger question is: once hired, how will the teachers be retained?
In a country where teachers in primary and secondary education are overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated—if not unemployed—working overseas, is undeniably an attractive option despite its hazards and difficulties. When the state is unable or reluctant to hire the number of teachers it needs, and when it is unable to improve school conditions in order to retain its best teachers, it is failing to fulfill its role in providing a decent future for its children. As the brain drain escalates, the biggest losers are the Filipino children.
The last is the lack of funds of the government for additional facilities. In Asia, the Philippines has the highest pupil to teacher ratio—36.4 (in 2000, the latest comparable year). Compare that to 17 in China, 21 in South Korea, 19 in Cambodia, 14 in Indonesia, 22 in Laos, 19 in Malaysia, 22 in Thailand, and 27 in Vietnam. Also, public schools don’t have enough books, and other needed facilities. DepEd reinforced its corruption efforts aimed at reforming anomalies in finances, particularly in hiring and procurement, as well as refined its 12- Point Agenda (or Education Roadmap under Secretary Edilberto C. de Jesus) by expanding it into the Schools First Initiative(SFI) under the leadership of Secretary Florencio B. Abad, which will strive for the decentralization of the management of schools, and for the greater involvement of the community in taking responsibility and ownership for the achievement and performance of their students. But, it is not good enough.
However, in the recent statistical data gathered by National Statistical Coordination Board, 94 out of every 100 elementary graduates are not qualified to be in high school. Out of 100 pupils who start a Grade I, only 66 will graduate after six years. The 34 cannot because of sheer poverty, despite elementary school being free. Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus has been trying mightily to retrain elementary school graduates before they can get to high school. Some even suggest an additional year in the elementary education to enhance the knowledge and skills of the elementary students. But, is there really a need for such?
I personally do not agree with such proposal. As we all see, the problem lies with students themselves and in the learning environment where there are in. And the government should focus on this problem. I can raise four possible points why there should not be an additional year in the elementary years of students in the Philippines.
First is the quality of education in the Philippines. Philippines used to have one of the highest enrolment ratios of college-age population actually in school out of the total population. Not anymore. Among the Philippines’ top universities, none are among the top 25 in Asia. The best, the University of the Philippines, is in the lower 25 of the Top 50. Ateneo and La Salle are near the bottom of the Top 80. With poor quality schools that does not have care for there students, the Philippine students is on its way to nowhere.
Second are the expenses for the families of these students. Another year in elementary years means additional expense for the family. As of now, the cost of education to every family affected is P5,000 a year. There are 8.26 million families with children in elementary school. Assuming just five million graduate from elementary school a year, multiply that by P5,000, and you have a whopping P25 million in additional expenses for these families, not to mention the expense of the government. Even assuming one million Grade 6 graduates, the cost is still staggering—P5 billion a year in extra expenses. Poor families don’t have that kind of money. If all the congressmen and senators were to pool their pork barrel funds for one year, just one year, they would be able to send these kids back to school—for one year. It’s a big if—because our lawmakers look at their interest, not at the interest of the next generation. That is the difference between politicians and statesmen. The first group looks after the present, its present interest. The other group looks at the next generation. Perhaps, many of our congressmen and our senators are not educated enough to know the difference.
Third is the lack of well-equipped teachers. The proposal still will never solve the problem of having good teachers for our Filipino students. According to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, as reported by the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics on its Labstat Updates (Vol. 7, No. 12, July 2003), the number of teachers who left the country every year to practice their profession abroad grew from 112 in 1992 to more than five times as many in 2002, with 586 teachers taking teaching jobs overseas. From 1992 to October 2002, 2,289 teachers were deployed abroad. Almost half (45.2 percent) went to teach in the United States; 18.2 per cent, in Saudi Arabia; and 5.9 per cent, in Brunei. In the last three years of the survey, the US alone accounted for more than half (55.5 percent) of the total deployment. Short-Term Solutions
The statistics prove conclusively that the fields of primary and secondary education in the Philippines are suffering acutely from brain drain. However, despite a large supply, many eligible teachers are not being employed by the educational system. Data from the Department of Education show that the number of the country’s elementary and secondary teachers, both public and private, remained almost the same within a span of ten years. From 433,701 in 1991, it increased by only 71,658 to 505,359 in 2000, for a growth rate of only 1.7 percent or 7,962 newly employed teachers per year. The country’s public schools accounted for 86.5 percent of the total teacher employment in 2000.
Compare these to figures released by the Professional Regulation Commission for the same decade (1991-2000), which show that 35,238 graduates on average passed the teachers board examination annually, out of which only 7,962 were absorbed by the educational system. Furthermore, in February of this year, the DepEd released an order adopting austerity measures through the non-filling of vacant positions, although its online newsletter dated April 2005 reported a search for 10,000 new teachers.
In its search for teachers, the DepEd is of course competing with foreign institutions. According to Bulatlat.com, US school districts need to hire around 200,000 teachers each year. But because fewer and fewer Americans want the job, private recruiters plan to place at least a million foreign teachers in American classrooms by 2007. The Philippines, with a system of education patterned after the US’s and high proficiency in English, is emerging as the chief source of recruits.
With only a little over a fourth of those eligible to teach gaining employment in the Philippines, the brain drain of teachers in elementary and high schools could in fact be a catch basin for the excess supply of teachers. But to see the brain drain as a solution rather than a problem is in itself a problem.
Lack of Teachers
The truth is, the number of teachers hired each year is insufficient to address the country’s needs in primary and secondary education. The new-hires cannot keep up with the fast-rising number of students. It is especially hard on the public schools where student populations are growing, as more and more students enter into the stream, some of them transferring from private schools. Owing to bureaucratic, financial, and logistical constraints, the hiring levels of public schools cannot keep up with the need. The result is a worsening teacher to student ratio. Figures from the DepEd show that as of 1991 the national ratio was 1:33. In 2000, it was 1:35. Latest data from the department show that in public schools, the teacher to pupil ratio in the elementary level for school year 2001-2002 stood at 1:36, while the teacher to student ratio in the high school level stood at 1:39. A quick count of enrollment in 2003-2004 indicated an alarming 1:42 ratio for public high schools. Extreme cases are experienced in highly urbanized areas where the classes swell to more than 70.
Consider also that those leaving for teaching jobs abroad are generally those with better credentials. For example, recruitment in the US must meet a federal mandate for “highly qualified” licensed teachers. Teachers seeking employment abroad still compete not only among each other but also against teachers from other countries, such as India, in terms of qualifications. Thus, the Philippine educational system is losing some of its most qualified teachers. This is especially true for high school teachers. High school teachers are required to specialize, i.e. have mastery of the subject they teach, unlike elementary education teachers who may teach all subjects. High school math subjects, for example, are ideally taught by an education graduate who majored in Math. When high school teachers leave, people with the same qualifications must take their place, and suitable replacements are not easy to find. The country also loses the investments it made on those teachers. For example, DepEd is reported to be developing the Science and Math teaching competency of its teachers through training and scholarships. This enrichment may very well translate into better qualifications for their applications abroad. While the DepEd is also reported to be tightening its recruitment policies so that only the best qualified will enter the system (Education Post, Vol. 37, No. 3, April 16-30, 2005, www.deped.gov.ph), the bigger question is: once hired, how will the teachers be retained?
In a country where teachers in primary and secondary education are overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated—if not unemployed—working overseas, is undeniably an attractive option despite its hazards and difficulties. When the state is unable or reluctant to hire the number of teachers it needs, and when it is unable to improve school conditions in order to retain its best teachers, it is failing to fulfill its role in providing a decent future for its children. As the brain drain escalates, the biggest losers are the Filipino children.
The last is the lack of funds of the government for additional facilities. In Asia, the Philippines has the highest pupil to teacher ratio—36.4 (in 2000, the latest comparable year). Compare that to 17 in China, 21 in South Korea, 19 in Cambodia, 14 in Indonesia, 22 in Laos, 19 in Malaysia, 22 in Thailand, and 27 in Vietnam. Also, public schools don’t have enough books, and other needed facilities. DepEd reinforced its corruption efforts aimed at reforming anomalies in finances, particularly in hiring and procurement, as well as refined its 12- Point Agenda (or Education Roadmap under Secretary Edilberto C. de Jesus) by expanding it into the Schools First Initiative(SFI) under the leadership of Secretary Florencio B. Abad, which will strive for the decentralization of the management of schools, and for the greater involvement of the community in taking responsibility and ownership for the achievement and performance of their students. But, it is not good enough.
.jpg)
.jpg)
