College subjects in high school

Section 18, called the “Repealing Clause,” of the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (the K to 12 Law) reads: “Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 or the Education Act of 1982, Republic Act No. 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2011, Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.”

What does this provision mean for subjects currently taught in college? Will these subjects now be taught in high school and only in high school?

RA 9258 is the Guidance and Counseling Act of 2004. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot find anything in this law that has been amended by the K to 12 Law. Because I am in the Steering Committee that discussed this provision, however, I know the intent behind mentioning RA 9258.

RA 9258 requires all guidance counselors in schools to be licensed by the Professional Regulation Board of Guidance and Counseling, which is under the Professional Regulation Commission. Right now, there are not enough guidance counselors to service all our schools. Since guidance counseling is crucial to the success of Senior High School, where students have to choose what career track they will follow, we need enough guidance counselors to advise the expected one million students entering Grade 11 in 2016.

DepEd will need unlicensed guidance counselors who may actually have the qualifications listed in Section 14 of RA 9258 (for example, doctoral or masters degree holders, three years of experience teaching, 18 graduate units of Guidance and Counseling) but missed the two-year grace period ending 2006 (the grandfather clause). Perhaps the DepEd lawyers can figure out how to use Section 18 of the K to 12 Law to justify hiring such counselors.

RA 7836, known as the “Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994,” amended by RA 9293, has a provision that reads: “No person shall engage in teaching and/or act as a professional teacher as defined in this Act whether in the preschool, elementary or secondary level, unless the person is a duly registered professional teacher, and a holder of a valid certificate of registration and a valid professional license or a holder of a valid special/temporary permit.” This is the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) requirement to teach in basic education.

This particular provision has clearly been amended by the K to 12 Law. Section 8 of the new law explicitly allows the Department of Education and private schools to hire non-LET holders to teach part-time. There are specific qualifications, of course, such as having relevant undergraduate degrees; those without such degrees have to be approved by appropriate government agencies in addition to DepEd. Full-time teachers still need to pass the LET, although they have a grace period of five years after hiring. Teachers of technical and vocational courses also have to have the appropriate TESDA certifications.

What lawyers will clearly argue about is the rest of the provision. What are the “other laws, decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions” of the K to 12 Law?

Some may argue that this is a blanket amendment of such laws as RA 9163 (the National Service Training Program Act of 2001, which mandates NSTP for all college students), RA 5708 (the Schools Physical Education and Sports Development Act of 1969, which has been interpreted to mean that PE is required in college), RA 1425 (the 1956 Rizal Law, which requires all colleges to teach the Noli and the Fili in the original Spanish or in unexpurgated translations), and various laws and regulations that require undergraduates to study Taxation, Agrarian Reform, Philippine Constitution, Family Planning, and Population Education.

Others may argue, however, that since these laws and regulations have not been mentioned explicitly, they are still in force. I will let the lawyers argue these points.

From an educational standpoint, however, I have to admit that I tend to go for complete academic freedom on the college level and for a little bit more regulation on the basic education level.

I really do not see why a college student who is preparing for a career in, say, astrophysics, and has plans to work in research centers abroad has to spend precious time studying agrarian reform.

On the other hand, I can see why a high school graduate needs to know a little bit about everything, including community service, physical education, Rizal, taxation, agrarian reform, Philippine Constitution, family planning, and population education. Every high school graduate knows a little algebra and statistics, as well as a little poetry and music, no matter what career path he or she will eventually take. Basic education is basic, but higher education should be higher, not merely more of the same.

THANK YOU: My gratitude goes to Sittie Pasandalan, Bobby Lim, and officials of MSU-IIT for extraordinary hospitality. I also commend General Daniel Lucero for keeping the area safe (no kidnappings since he came on board, voting lists purged, culturally-conscious soldiers); his strategy is simple: he announced that any Muslim who commits a crime will not get a passport and will therefore not go to Mecca.