GUEST COLUMNIST

By Nika Llamanzares

The effectiveness of the K to 12 system has been a topic of debate ever since it was introduced in 2013. According to the Official Gazette of the Philippines, the system, especially through its addition of the last two years of high school, is supposed to produce employable students. The system has begun to bear fruit in the last year. As an article in the Manila Bulletin which was published last year said, around 76 percent of K to 12 graduates have landed a job. Most of these jobs are related on food and beverage services, construction, machine operations, sales, and technical assistance. Another article published in a broadsheet in 2023 also stated that graduates who completed senior high school had a significant 16.2 percent chance of obtaining middle-skill level jobs as compared to those who did not complete the last two years of high school.

However, the article went on to state that there was no statistical difference between those who finished senior high school and junior high school in landing a job. In other words, the addition of two years does not necessarily heighten one’s employability.

 This finding may align with another news article in which companies were described to be more keen on hiring workers with experience, or have obtained at least a college degree. Essentially, the K to 12 curriculum does not compare to someone trained longer in a specialized field, making its graduates less appealing to employers. When they do land a job, Gen Z workers, the current age range of fresh K to 12 graduates, still feel the need to apply to more jobs to feel financially secure, another article said. 
Because of these points, an article published this July said, President Marcos has deemed the curriculum ineffective.  Marcos was quoted stating that the government was considering additional courses spanning from three months to one year. 

Despite the program’s shortcomings, I do not believe hastily adding to the already extended period of schooling is the best the government can do. Dismissing the current curriculum when it has just started yielding substantial results seems ill-advised. Clearly, something is working. So before prematurely adding to a student's workload, it may make more sense to build on the potential the original framework already has. Understanding what works best may be done by comparing the curriculum to a global standard. 
In reference to a study by Professor Jessie Barrot from the National University Philippines, I will compare the curriculum to the Education 4.0 paradigm. The paradigm is described in the study as a set of standards curriculums across the globe are modeled to create future-ready students. At their core, curriculums are supposed to give clear learning goals for both the students and teachers to understand the importance of what is being taught. This essential foundation is what we lack the most. 

The study said that in the English, Science, and Mathematics departments, educators fail to outline the importance of each subject in the overall development of students. The lack of an outline causes teachers to gloss over more micro, but nonetheless integral lessons. As a result, teachers will often teach subjects unfit for the targeted grade level. Some lower levels will be taught more advanced concepts, while higher levels are taught elementary concepts. In the same vein, teachers often fail to give importance to students’ different learning styles as well, and are rarely able to personalize their lesson plans. Some students are then developmentally left behind. This diminished importance then finally extends to how students fail to attain employable skills, as educators often forgo explaining how lessons may be used in real life. 

Despite these shortcomings, Barrot explains that there is still evidence of the Philippines adhering to global standards. There have been teachers who have started personalizing lesson plans to their students, especially in the English department. Educators have also followed the concept of spiral progression, in which topics are repeated throughout a students’ time in high school for them to better retain the information. Some topics are not delved into deeper, making the curriculum redundant. However, the practice of solidifying the importance of concepts has become more apparent since the curriculum’s implementation. 

Of course, this is an overly simplistic analysis. I do not take into account how the lack of resources, such as more teachers, more technology, and more classrooms may affect the curriculum’s impact. 

However, the idea that improvement can be attained by simply outlining goals proves that the curriculum is not fraught. If anything, the hope that improvement is achievable means it is worth salvaging. Combined with its more positive results, its potential is something our government should better understand. Otherwise, in immediately dismissing the curriculum as ineffective, our leaders may adopt programs that may yield even less.  

(Nika Llamanzares is currently studying communications at the University of Southern California. In a world of political polarization, she believes that reliable, thought-provoking news is more important than ever. She hopes to become a professional journalist one day to make such news more accessible to the public. You may reach her at [email protected].)