Out of caution, the Philippines was one of the last countries to resume face-to-face learning in mid-November 2021, or 21 months after the government declared a national health emergency following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. “We are happy to see our learners inside our classrooms as we recognize the significance of face-to-face learning in their social development,” declared the Department of Education (DepEd).
Warning that the "learning crisis could turn into a learning catastrophe," UNICEF has supported the DepEd’s plan on phased, voluntary, and safe reopening of schools. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) released a study in April 2021 showing that “estimated school closures of more than a year could slash future earnings among the region's students by as much as $1.25 trillion, equivalent to 5.4 percent of 2020 GDP.”
Amid the protracted lockdown, educators have also flagged the urgency of upgrading learner competencies in reading, arithmetic, and science where Filipino students are lagging behind their fellow ASEAN youth.
A two-month pilot run in lower-risk areas was disrupted midstream by an infection upsurge in Metro Manila. This was attributed to the highly transmissible Omicron variant that rapidly spread to the adjoining regions, which are the most heavily populated and where the biggest concentration of business establishments and factories are located.
Now that the contagion has declined significantly and the overall risk assessment has been deescalated to Alert Level 2, the DepEd announced on Feb. 2 that President Duterte has approved the “progressive expansion phase” of limited face-to-face classes in 304 schools in Metro Manila, Calabarzon, Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, and Eastern Visayas.
Reopening of schools is predicated on passing the School Safety Assessment Tool (SSAT). In its latest report, DepEd’s regional directors submitted a list of 6,686 schools nationwide that have passed the qualifications.
Just how stringent is the DepEd’s safety assessment is reflected in a comprehensive memorandum circular that covers the following aspects of managing school operations: shared responsibility with the local government units (LGUs), parents and the community; alternative work arrangements including availability, transportation and health of teachers; classroom layout and structure, with emphasis on physical distancing and adequate ventilation (including the use of high-efficiency particulate air filtration air purifiers); school traffic management; protective measures, hygiene factors and safety procedures; communication strategy and contingency plan.
Over and above the foregoing considerations, the assessment also includes: an inventory of required learning resources; provisions for well-being and protection such as personal protective equipment (PPE), face masks and face shields; and COVID-19 case management including prevention, detection, isolation, and treatment.
The final requirement on “including the most marginalized” is clearly comprehensive in coverage: “indigent children; out-of-school youth; physically and mentally handicapped; distressed individuals and families, including internally displaced persons; low resourced students; abandoned and neglected children; street children; children of former rebels; children living in conflict-affected areas and vulnerable communities; children with disabilities and special education (SPED) students; and children from geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas.”
Hopefully, more attention would be paid on “including the most marginalized” such that full compliance would facilitate the earlier reopening of more schools – and enable millions of Filipino youth to resume their disrupted education.