Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Who's bright idea? ( 2 extra school years )

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by Allegra, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. Allegra


    Mar 16, 2003
    Gasling kasi sa rich na school educ sec :)
    Lumaki tuloy gastos

    Theres The Rub
    Postscript to 12 years

    By Conrado de Quiros
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    First Posted 00:31:00 08/19/2010

    WILL MAKING basic education 12 years instead of 10 do any good?


    That it will do more harm than good has already been pointed out by other commentators. A couple more years of sending kids to elementary and high school may merely be an inconvenience for the rich or middle class, but it will be a calamity for the poor.
    The arguments for it are fanciful. The notion that 12 years should prepare the kids for work should they decide to do that instead of going to college is out of this world. To begin with, that is not a choice, that is a necessity for most Filipinos who are poor. The 10 years of basic education are already home to a dire rate of dropouts. A great many kids drop out of their first four years of elementary school to help bring food to the family’s table, such as by scavenging in garbage dumps.

    One tragic consequence of this, quite apart from that the kids are often lured to a life of crime, is that the dropouts get to be illiterate. Studies show that dropping out after two or three years of elementary school makes you forget what you learned in reading and ’riting and pushes you back to illiteracy. Only manual labor is hospitable to illiterates, and even then it helps to be able to read TNT.

    More than this, the problem with getting work in this country is not qualifications, it is work. There’s little of it. It’s not as though we’re in America where blue-collar jobs are plentiful, at least before the recession, and you can agonize about whether to work after high school or go to college. While at that, blue-collar jobs appear to have remained plentiful there, it’s the white-collar ones that have gone. Some former CEOs are now delivering pizza.

    Where would you go if you decided to work after high school? College graduates themselves can’t find jobs, and have to make do delivering pizza. How many pizza parlors and hamburger joints can accommodate the flood of graduates that college alone turns out every year?

    The only other option is work abroad. But there again it won’t matter whether you have 10 or 12 years of basic education. You’ve seen how our doctors turn to nurses abroad just to land jobs in hospitals. Filipino nurses are in demand in the UK, US and Canada not because they have more years of schooling than their counterparts from other countries but because they are more attentive and caring—maalaga, as someone told me in London.

    The proposal to extend basic education to 12 years misses the point entirely. I have several suggestions that I think will better address the problem.

    One is to make basic education truly universal by making it compulsory, complete with truant officers patrolling the streets and penalizing parents who do not send their kids to school. That requires of course immense subsidies: the problem for the poor is not tuition, it is books, various fees and allowances to give the kids. That can be solved by taxing the hell out of the rich—which is to say, justly, since they really do not pay what they owe—getting back the Ali Baba treasure Marcos, GMA and everyone in-between looted from this country—and making education and not debt payments our number one priority as the Constitution demands. Debt payments can be thrown to the bottom of the pie.

    Two, is to bring the world into, and not lock it out of, education. The problem of our basic education is not quantity, it is quality. There’s no lack of sources of education today other than the classroom. Even TV is capable of it, even as it is capable also of dumbing a country. My daughter’s generation went through “Sesame Street,” and I personally lament its passing in these parts. Infinitely more than that, there’s the PC, or the Internet in particular. And what I deem to be the most important development of all, education-wise, the e-reader. I myself suspect the e-reader will supplant printed books in 10 years, in the developed countries at least if not here. But we won’t be far behind. These things have a way of happening faster than we think.

    To be obsessed with the classroom is to have tunnel vision. While at that, compare an elementary classroom in South Korea that has a 1to 1 ratio between PC and student and one in ours that has at best one for every classroom. That alone must depress you with the thought of the technological divide that must yawn further between our kids-turned-adults and theirs over the next 10 years. That cannot be solved by adding a couple of more years to education, that can be solved by adding more PCs to classrooms. That can be done in part not quite incidentally by Filipinos in the United States and elsewhere donating their old—which is to say year-old, that’s how fast the changes take place—PCs to their poorer cousins, or nephews and nieces, in this country.

    Three is to rediscover that the point of education is to educate, not to employ. Paradoxically, the reason our schools do not turn out graduates that get employed is that they set out to get them employed. That is a pathetic excuse for education. The reason for schools is to give a country a brain, or a breadth of vision, or a depth of imagination, or a fountainhead of creativity. Enough for its citizens to think out of the box, see alternatives, envision possibilities. Educating someone so he can have a crack at a job merely instills in him the kind of attitudes that defeat getting ahead in life. That is best illustrated by that joke, which is really not a joke at all, about the Filipino and Singaporean graduate. When two Filipino graduates meet, they ask each other: “What job have you gotten?” When two Singaporean graduates meet, they ask each other: “What business have you opened?”

    The second is educated. The first merely had 12 years of elementary and high school.
  2. isuzu


    Jul 3, 2005
    North America
    I remember La Salle used to have Grade 7.

  3. ahtsay


    Jan 16, 2006
    It's kinda stupid isn't it? The curriculum will probably remain the same, just stretched out over the 2 extra years. Not only would it cost more, but the kids are burdened with school instead of being able to join the work force sooner. Would they be better trained given the 2 extra years??? I don't think so either. Who's bright idea???? Probably someone who owns schools, thats who :supergrin:
  4. z_e_n


    May 5, 2009
    Whatever happened to Quality over Quantity??? :crazy:
  5. ans3288


    Nov 29, 2004
    there is already of shortage of classrooms as it is...

    MAJINKONG Sr. Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Free Flood
    Yes. three years of studying (nursery, kinder, & Prep) ay wala ka pa sa grade 1. Now, they will add another two years, why?.. "Mag aral ka na muna ng matagal kid ... wala naman job after graduation".
  7. De Angelo

    De Angelo

    Jan 6, 2009
    no matter how many years they study..If the gov't doesnt get any investors and improve the economy they'll all end up jobless or over qualified..

    the gov't should focus first on peace and order and stopping red tape so that the investors would consider the phil.
  8. Wp.22


    Jan 17, 2005
    mas marami pa ako natutunan sa tatay ko than school
  9. darwin25

    darwin25 Make your move

    I don't know where Conrado de Quiros gets his facts but I have not heard of a former CEO ending up as a pizza delivery boy locally.
  10. Allegra


    Mar 16, 2003
    Looking at the curriculum in one school, nagulat ako that their BS Chemistry was under their School of Management. Di ba dapat na sa Arts and Sciences?
    It turns out that they want their grads not only to develop products sa lab, but to manufacture and market it themselves as well.
    Ang galeng! Tama nga naman
    Dapat talaga may business/entreprenuership classes na lahat ng courses
    Turuan mga bata maging self employed and become future employers rather than umasa nalang parati sa investors and matigil na brain drain
    Demet, i could have used an accounting class

    Instead they add useless 2 years sa curriculum
  11. Allegra


    Mar 16, 2003

    He meant sa states after the recession hit
  12. apoy

    apoy 1337

    Nov 14, 2005
    Most will need that 2 years to immigrate to Canada as SW1 (even if via PQ)

    Medyo nakakahiya kasi wala pa nga, ang isip ko paglabas na ng bansa, tsk. Pros and Cons lang siguro.

    Ang sarap sa tenga.

    ... as for the pizza thingy, he's probably talking 'bout this fellow
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  13. darwin25

    darwin25 Make your move

    He was kinda telling it like it happened here.
  14. Kaiser Soze

    Kaiser Soze Notorious

    Jul 27, 2006
    I'm for improving the quality of education, not extending the length of a student's stay. I am also for the improvement of teachers' pay and benefits, so teachers stay in country. We don't hear too much about that, now do we?
  15. Is it not that education overseas, is actually longer and that adding 2 more years to the curriculum would only make education in the Phils at par with the education system of the first world? This begs the question of whether the current Phil curriculum is able to demonstrate that it is sufficient and is actually at par or even better than a curriculum that has 2 more years in it such as those in say the US?

    Not that I am for it as I agree that it should be quality and not in quantity and if this can be achieved within the current curriculum then so be it and we dont need the change.

    One can hope that DECS has made a critical study of this and if so, should be clearly articulated. That study must demonstrate based on factual information that adding 2 years will improve student proficiency.

    Frankly, not everything inside the classroom is what applies to the real world. Yes it serves as a good solid foundation but still nothing replaces actual work experience which provides the know-how. And that is where attention should be focused.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2010
  16. Allegra


    Mar 16, 2003
    Korean and japanese kids yata may calculus na before they are 10 :)
    It's quality talaga and.......attitude?

    Honestly, looking was a waste of time
  17. Kaiser Soze

    Kaiser Soze Notorious

    Jul 27, 2006
    Amen to that. I've used maybe %20 of what I learned in college for business. :shocked:
  18. The problem is curriculums in college is still broadly based and does not provide the younger generation with short specialization courses that directly apply to the real world.

    My experience is the same with you KS, what I have applied is what I have learned in the years of working and yes it is the winning attitude that makes the difference.