THIS DEBATE is on whether the government should put its limited resources on the Enhanced K-12 Basic Education Program which will add two years to our present 10-year basic education. The enhanced K-12 program as many now know, will have kindergarten, 6 years of elementary education, four years of junior high school (Grades 7 to 10), and two years of senior high school.
According to the 2010 Department of Education Briefing Report, the last two years (Grades 11 and 12) will provide time for the student to consolidate acquired academic skills and competencies. It plans to complete the enhanced 12-year curriculum and start with incoming Grade 1 students of SY 2012-13. The rationale for the two years is to decongest and enhance basic education curricula, provide quality learning, and be at par with other countries in Asia which provide more years for basic education. Now, a lot of students were alarmed. Some argues that this program will serve as an extra expense of our government while some says it’s a big opportunity for us to produce well experienced, competitive and international skilled graduates.
Possible reasons against K-12 Basic Education Program:
1. It is unrealistic and may drive more youths to drop out of school.
2. It is impractical for a country that has one of the lowest budgets for education.
3. It will require extra expenses for families in our society where the majority is impoverished.
4. It could also reinforce cheap semi-skilled labor for foreign markets.
5. It will just add up to the burden of parents and students.
Possible reasons for K-12 Basic Education Program:
1. It will provide time for the student to consolidate acquired academic skills and competencies.
2. It will also decongest and enhance basic education curricula, provide quality learning, and be at equality with other countries in Asia which provide more years for basic education.
3. The additional two years in the said program is crucial to come up with a proposal in enhancing our basic education program in a manner that is least disruptive to the current curriculum, most affordable to government and families, and aligned with international practice.
4. This quality of education is reflected in the inadequate preparation of high school graduates for the world of work or entrepreneurship or higher education.
5. It’s a good opportunity to match the academic levels of other countries.
KIN PEARLY FLORES graduated from Cauayan South Central School in Isabela and Sta. Lucia Academy inLucia, Ilocos Sur.
MUTYA EMPRECIO is an alumna of Almanza Elementary School and New Era University.
GREJEAN MAY ATALE is from East Central School and Palawan National High School in Puerto Princesa City.
If you’re a parent, a student, or just an ordinary person, the Department of Education wants to know your view in this issue. Make a stand. Have the power to defend it. Do you think K-12 Basic Education Program in the Philippines is beneficial or just an additional burden?
Hit your keyboard!
NOTE: Click first the 'LIKE' button above (if you have not clicked yet) so that your comment/vote will be COUNTED. To invite friends to join the discussion, click the 'Send' button and invite.
Informal and after-school education organizations
Once a consensus has been reached, the core ideas will be useful in a variety of ways. First, they will provide a foundation and direction for the infusion and mapping approaches described in Chapter 3. The consistency and authority of both approaches will be reinforced by having agreed engineering ideas and practices to draw upon. One important use of the core ideas might be to inform the engineering portions of the expected new standards for K–12 science education to be developed by Achieve, Inc. in 2011. Another might be to strengthen the engineering content in the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association’s Standards forTechnological Literacy, if and when they undergo revision.
Second, the core ideas will be a resource for improving existing or creating new curricula, conducting teacher professional development, designing assessments, and informing education research.
Third, although the committee’s focus was on questions related to the development and implementation of standards for the K–12 classroom, we recognize that there are also many opportunities for young people—and adults—to learn about engineering outside the formal school setting. Indeed, student involvement in out-of-school learning environments may equal in-class exposure for some subjects, such as science (Chi et al., 2008). Core ideas will provide guidance for people who work in informal education settings, such as museums, and after-school programs.
Part of the committee’s charge was to consider how, or whether, standards for engineering education in K–12 would differ depending on whether the overall purpose is to support the goal of general literacy (the “mainline”) or to target a narrower group of students who are interested in pursuing careers in engineering (the “pipeline”). The committee believes that the identification of core ideas in engineering will be beneficial for both purposes.
Ultimately, curriculum developers, providers of professional development, and others with an engineering-pipeline orientation may build on the foundation provided by core ideas by emphasizing connections between engineering and mathematics and science, especially physics. Educators with a mainline focus may use core ideas to develop resources for traditional science, mathematics, and technology education classes or informal or after-school programs.
Provide Guidelines for the Development of Instructional Materials
The value of core ideas will be greatly enhanced for all purposes if they are embedded in “guidelines” for the development of instructional materials (cf., Rutherford, 2009). The purpose of the guidelines would be to improve the quality of engineering education materials, accelerate their development, and increase the number of individuals and groups that can use them, without developing actual standards.
Guidelines would necessarily include the core ideas in engineering, but they would also address other considerations, which we know from research and practice are important to ensuring the quality of instructional materials (Box 4-1). In other words, guidelines would not include all of the characteristics of effective educational curricula; they would include only the characteristics for which we have some basis in experience and understanding. The guidelines should be revised and improved as our knowledge grows and improves.