Additional Years of Education, Answer to Poverty?

As we draw closer to the May 2010 National and Local Elections, more and more candidates are going to the extremes for the sake of getting noticed. However, it should be underscored that the nearing elections do not give political candidates currently seated in a government position the consent to go berserk and submit the masses to half-baked ideas and proposals for the sake of having a “say” in the political arena or for plain campaign purposes.

LP’s standard bearer, Senator Noynoy Aquino pointed out how the Philippines’ 10-year education curriculum is proven incompetent as compared to the 12-year education curriculum of other countries. Noynoy says: “The Philippines has the shortest education cycle preparatory to university. Ours is 10 years; the rest of the world is 12. In short, we have a curriculum that, on paper, covers the same subject matter as the rest of the world but which we cram into 10, instead of 12, years. This means that our teachers take all kinds of short cuts to try to cover the material or just simply do not attempt to cover the entire syllabus in a given year for lack of material time. This shortchanges our children’s education.”

This, according to the presidentiable, is one of the reasons why many Filipino graduates are ineffectual and could not compete with graduates of international universities/colleges. Noynoy envisions that his proposal will help alleviate poverty in our country. But will the additional two years of intermediate schooling be enough to address these problems? To start off, the Senator’s idea will only increase the number of out-of-school youth because additional years, of course, means additional expenses for the struggling masses; thus making this proposal anti-poor. Our country is filled with public schools that are lacking teachers, proper facilities and even the basic needs such as books and classroom materials.

How can the government fund the teachers, schoolrooms, and textbooks for the added years, when it does not even have enough money for the grade levels existing today?

Our country is in the midst of grave poverty but are we too desperate to consider taking a very simplistic approach in solving a highly convoluted problem existing in our country for so long? If the times call for an immediate action on this matter, why not improve and further develop the standard of Philippine education without having to risk losing the number of enrollees for the next school year? The proposal is sound but did he even confer the possible disadvantages? If Noynoy really cares to improve our country’s education system, then he should be presenting something beyond sound ideas. More importantly, his decisions should be of great consideration to the masses which comprise the majority of our population.

Let us face the truth that in a country where there is a visible sign of struggle almost everywhere we look, there is no place for a law that will only melt the littlest hope the poor masses are hoping for—a brighter and better future for their children. Noynoy should know better.