On K-12: Not so good idea
I know this is kinda late to post, but still I think my opinions are to be heard, or read, or so I think. anyway here goes.
As the school year 2011-2012 starts, issues on the Philippine Education System also started to buzz once again. The lack of classrooms, chairs, books, and poor quality of infrastructures together with alleged poor standards of Filipino teachers were once again heard. It’s like a broken record player on repeat every time the school year starts.
However, there was more to this school year’s issues as the issue of Universal Kindergarten and 12-year Basic Education was heard.
The basic premise of this project, as i understood it, is that all children who are in schooling age are required to be enrolled to kindergarten. And then, 2 years would be added to our basic education years, so there’s gonna be Grade School from Grades 1-6, then Junior High School which will be Grades 7-10, then last would be Senior High School, which will be Grades 11 and 12.
You see, in theory, I AM ALL UP for this concept. I agree that it would be very beneficial to the next generations, who in my opinion are having a hard time staying and learning in school because of the million socio-political problems our country has, as well as the million distractions technology had provided them. I agree that additional year might really do some good for all of us. That it can help heighten once again the standards and level of the Philippine Education System.
HOWEVER, as much as I love for this idea, I know that we are not ready for this kind of move. Like the many questions that surrounds us right now: Where would we get the funds? Do we have enough funds? What facilities would we use? Where would we get more teachers? Would we be able to pay for those teachers? Are we really ready and equipped for this? - These are also my concerns for this program, and something more.
When we did an interview with a DepEd Associate Secretary, he told us that one reason 2 years would be added in high school is that students would graduate at the age of 18. The problem with our current system is that we graduate high school at the age of 16. Too young to be able to work and be hired by companies. So two years would be added so that once they graduate, they would be old enough to hired by various companies. At the same time, during those two years, they would be taught various vocational courses that will equip them to work asap.
This is now my concern. The idea I think pulls us back the the push that pour education system needs. Instead of the want to produce scholars and doctors and entrepreneurs and degree holders, they want to produce manual labor workers that they can outsource especially to other countries. Instead of trying to push our young people to pursue college and specialize on something more for them to achieve more for themselves, we encourage them to settle to vocational courses. Please do not get me wrong, NO DISRESPECT to those who finished such courses, I do believe their services are essential but do we really want to be known as the country who OUTSOURCE ITS PEOPLE?
A friend of mine from the States tole me that its much harder here in the Philippines because non degree holders cannot land a good paying job, unlike in the States where you can survive even if you do not have a degree. And I kinda liked that idea. Its kind of a good thing so that we would really pursue to reach something higher. With the additional 2 years, its like we are lowering our standards and encouraging people to just deal with what they have when we are suppose to be encouraging them pushing them to be better.
Again, I stress that I do not have anything against those who finished and settled for vocational courses. I just think it will be awesome if we have a society full of professionals, that we need not to outsource our won people instead other countries deploy their people to us.
YES we do need this K-12 program but CLEARLY the plans are still not there yet, and we are not ready for it at this moment.
[I stress that everything stated in this entry does not represent any individual or company other than myself. This is a mere expression of my thoughts and opinions regarding the subject matter.]
Lacierda CAN NOT blame Media.
Last week, Presidential Communication Group Secretary Edwin Lacierda blamed the dropping approval rate of the President to the newspaper columnist. According to the presidential spokesman, the criticism written by columnist caused this unpopularity to our leader.
Here is quote from Lacierda from SunStar:
I think wala po tayong problema sa Malacanang Press Corps. I think walang problema sa news itself, siguro doon lang po sa mga columnist na maraming nagbabatikos”
”These are all columnists -they have their own opinions, they have their own jaded view of certain events,”
To our dearest political leaders, and everyone else who think the same way as Mr. Lacierda, let me share to you some points I have learned in school, as well as with my few month of working in he industry, that you may be educated.
1. Columnist are NOT news writers. Yes they do write in newspapers and magazines, but they do not write news. What they share to the audience are their opinions regarding a certain issue. Their opinions are published in major newspapers in the country for they have already proved themselves and their opinions to be worth reading.
2. Columnist earn their rights to be called columnists, it is not something that just happens. The title is usually given to a person who is knowledgeable and experienced to the field that s/he writes about. These obtained knowledge obtained from a whole lot of experiences makes them critical thinkers. So to Sec. Lacierda: I doubt that columnist have “jaded” ideas or views.
3. Columnists only react and write about things that are presented in the news. They do not make up stories which they will base their opinions to. Again, they earn their right to be called as a Columnists, so it is only common sense that they do not jeopardize this by creating or making up news from which they will base their columns.
4. The press/media are mere message senders. Like columnists, we do not create nor make up ‘news’. We are mere instruments for message dissemination. So if there are no good news from the Aquino administration going out to the public, its is either; (1) there is no good message to be related, and/or (2) the message is present but it is not channeled to the messenger. Just like what our President Aquino admitted:
“our main weakness is messaging”.
5. The newspapers, where columnists’ works are published is a struggling, if not a dying, media. Does the government really thing that the billions of people who are no longer please the president’s performance ALL read newspapers? I guess not coz if this is true, then the newspaper must be the most popular form media (which is sadly not!)
6. Our audience, news/opinion receivers ARE NOT DUMB. They may read all this news and columns but they certainly think about it first before they make up their minds on which side of the issue to take. Yes media/press is influential but it has been long proven that the magic bullet theory is not accurate. People know how to think and decide form themselves, opposite of what Lacierda is implying in his statements (that people just believe and accept what media/press throws at them).
7. Media/Press exist to serve the people, to keep them informed. Though we send out messages channeled to us by the government, we can not simply control what the audience is interested in. For instance, when we present good news and bad news, it is no longer in our control whether the audience will be more interested in either good or bad.
8. Media/press is still profit oriented. So we will gather more information that will sell to the audience. This means more on what they are interested in. BUT this doesn’t mean that will no longer deliver message that is least popular to the public.
With this I would like leave a direct message to some people.
TO SEC. LACIERDA: Once again, the Pres had cleaned your mess. After blaming us for your mistakes and short comings as suppose to be message bearer and somehow image builder of the Pres., He has taken the blame and admitted that it is indeed the Malacanang who was the problem, to quote the Pres once again:
“our main weakness is messaging”.
TO THE COMM GROUP: There is already 3 of you heading this office and still you have a weakness in properly channeling your message? What’s up with that?
TO THE PRES: It has been more that a year that you have these problems with you Comm Group, I guess it would be time to review and think if you really need all three of them, or any of them for that matter.
[I stress that everything stated in this entry does not represent any individual or company other than myself. This is a mere expression of my thoughts and opinions regarding the subject matter.]
Chalk Board theme
