THE conceptual setting of the addition of two more years to basic education — what is now known as 'Senior High School' — is the Philippine Qualifications Framework that was aligned, at least in theory, with the Asean Qualifications Framework — one more salutary (It was supposed to be so!) consequence of Asean integration. The framework was not only the guide to the structuring of education. It set its sights on exit competencies and employability. There was really nothing wrong with adding two years to basic education. The Philippines was virtually the only country in Southeast Asia that had an abbreviated basic education curriculum not because our students were exceedingly brilliant, but because something was amiss with our curriculum. I have heard the argument that a prolonged stay in school does not guarantee learning. That is not quite so. When instruction is structured and delivered competently, prolonged stay in school makes a difference.

The Philippine Qualifications Framework conceived of eight levels after Grade 12. One who pursued the National Certification programs of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) could go as high as Level 5 which was what the 'Diploma' got him. Very clearly, the point of the framework was to open to students the possibility of profitable education that did not necessitate a university degree. That, of course, was an uphill battle in this degree-inebriated country. Once more, in theory, there were 'tracks' and 'strands.' The tracks were Academic, Arts and Design, Sports, and Technical and Vocational Education. The student was supposed to have been guided to the track for which her aptitude, competencies and skills qualified her. She was supposed to have been apprised of the opportunity each track offered. This also meant that not all tracks led to the university. The Academic track did, but all the rest were supposed to qualify the student for the fulfillment of passion and inclination, and for self-employment or engagement with industry or any production sector, including the sector of the arts. The Academic track promised at least four strands: Accountancy-Business-Management, Science-Technology-Engineering-Math, Humanities and Social Sciences, General Academic Strand. From this array alone, it is immediately apparent that if the program was to succeed, not only did the schools — particularly the public schools — have to be equipped with all that was necessary to transform these plans from paper to actuality (infrastructure and equipment). It was as important if not more important to have the qualified agents for the delivery of instruction.

For us in tertiary education, the so-called general education subjects were supposed to have been given in senior high school — and, on paper, at least, they were. But when one has the Philosophy of the Human Person, for example, being taught by a P.E. major, it is not difficult to imagine the decadence that follows from this miserable implementation of an otherwise well-intentioned plane. We have become blasé to failed initiatives in education. After all, we have been through several experiments. It seems that when a DepEd or a CHEd functionary goes abroad for a two-week work-shop (work in the morning, shop in the afternoon!), when she returns, what is visited on schools, colleges and universities is one more modification of existing programs, or, worse, a rewriting of the entire system!

The tracks have all but been forgotten and the strands are completely meaningless. Any senior high school graduate, whatever his supposed track, makes his way to a program of choice in a university or college willing to accept him. And because we have a Commission on Higher Education that does not know the meaning of dialogue, there is hardly any communication between Basic and Higher Education with the sad result that higher education is askew in relation to basic education.

Contributing to this monumental failure of basic education is the continuing attitude of employers in the Philippines to demand of applicants and employees transcripts of records. We still have to learn that a National Certificate may attest to a degree of skill not possessed by one with an MA or an MSc degree.

There is nothing wrong with the Philippine Qualifications Framework. There is everything wrong with the way we have implemented it and with the gross incompetence and insouciance that have gone into effecting the changes it was supposed to bring about. And rather than sacrificing more students to a failed system because of inertia's grip on educators, we must now take the bold steps necessary to bring to fruition the framework as it was conceived, envisioned and designed.

rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph

rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph

rannie_aquino@outlook.com