Shortcutting education risks long-term harm
In recent months, a wave of policy proposals has emerged from lawmakers seeking to “reform” the Philippine education system. One senator has proposed a return to the old K-10 basic education system. Another has suggested reducing the duration of college. The Second Congressional Commission on Education is considering the removal of general education (gen-ed) subjects from college. Another previous proposal recommends students bypass senior high school (SHS) through an exam or by graduating with honors. While these reforms may appear valid, aiming for efficiency, cost cutting, and student convenience, they raise concerns regarding Philippine education’s the quality and long-term sustainability.
Many members of the academe find it deeply troubling that these drastic proposals are being driven not by education experts, but by policymakers largely unfamiliar with the realities of the education sector. While these proposals are seeking to improve our education, they reflect a concerning trend of academic shortcuts, favoring convenience over real learning, quantity over quality, and quick results over lasting progress.
Let us begin with House Bill No. 11213 which allows Grade 10 students to bypass SHS through an exam or academic honors, and recently, a proposal to revert to the K-10 system. These ideas, while appealing to some parents and students burdened by the costs of additional schooling, are dangerously shortsighted. International standards for basic education now require at least 12 years of formal schooling for employment or university eligibility. Reverting to a 10-year system, even conditionally, ignores the main rationale behind our K-12 reform: to make Filipino learners globally competitive.
Moreover, the notion that academic honors or a qualifying exam are sufficient college readiness indicators is flawed. Academic readiness is not solely based on merely an exam, but also on other skills like critical thinking and research capabilities, which a single exam cannot simply capture. Additionally, grade inflation has become rampant, awarding honors is no longer a reliable measure of competence. As professor JC Punongbayan of UP noted in 2024, grade inflation is a “rife in basic education”; inflated grades do not reflect actual learning. These fast-tracking is not only troublesome; it overlooks the complexity of learning and the actual developmental needs of learners.
The second concern is the proposed removal of general education subjects in college. Critics argue that gen-ed courses, such as ethics and history, are unrelated to one’s degree, are financially burdensome, and only add to academic workload. However, this perception fails to see the essential role gen-ed subjects play. These are not just add-ons; they are the moral and intellectual anchors of a democratic education.
Removing them reflects what Henry Giroux warns against: a dystopian education, where too much specialization leads to alienation, and students become merely robots deprived of skills such as critical thinking and civic consciousness. In fact, our existing curriculum already shows signs of this narrowing of perspective. Few students enroll in the humanities and social sciences strand, and many are underexposed to the strand, contributing to the scourge of fake news, historical revisionism, and anti-intellectualism. If we strip gen-ed courses from higher education, we rob students not just of information but of the very tools to question, reflect, and participate meaningfully in society.
These proposals may also affect not just students. It will likely reduce teaching loads, possibly leading to faculty retrenchment. We saw this already during the first implementation of K-12, where many educators were displaced. Educators find themselves experimented on, placed in uncertainty, and excluded from the policy-making process. Thousands of teachers are being sacrificed, not for educational integrity, but to appease market demands. It’s demoralizing for us teachers. We’ve struggled to balance work, academics, and personal commitments. We’ve fought hard for every opportunity to get a shot at tenure and promotion. We’ve sacrificed our well-being, time, and a system that treats us as dispensable. We are constantly asked to give more while receiving less: less security, less support, less respect. Meanwhile, policy after policy treats teachers as disposable, measured only by how well it fits into labor market projections.
We do not need to expedite learning at the expense of a well-rounded and critical citizenry. These proposed policies shortcutting education are not just misguided, they are predatory. They prey on the frustrations of families and the ignorance of a system that sells “progress” without substance. In moments like these, we are reminded of what education is truly for: not just survival but meaning. To borrow the words of Robin Williams in “Dead Poets Society,” “Medicine, law, business, engineering: these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love … these are what we stay alive for.”
—————-
Kurt Zeus L. Dizon is an assistant professor at Saint Louis University, Baguio City.
