Science, technology and the K-12 education

program

Philippine education in general has historically been problematic with science and mathematics

education even more weak. In view of this, the Aquino administration pushed for a complete

overhaul of the education system by adding two years in basic education, apparently as a

solution to its recurring troubles.

Agham Advocates of Science and Technology for the People in its advocacy for a scientific and

mass-oriented form of education, produced this paper as a critique of the K-12 program. This

paper will enumerate the flaws of the K-12 program with focus on its impacts on the quality of

the science and mathematics education in the country.

Background on the K-12 Program

In 2013, Republic Act No. 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act (EBEA) was signed into

law by President Benigno Aquino III. Its guiding principle is to make Filipino graduates “globally

competitive” to serve the needs of a “globalized environment.” EBEA provided the basis for

lengthening the basic education program from 10 years to 12 years. This encompasses a year

of compulsory kindergarten, six years of elementary education and another six years of

secondary education (which is subdivided into four years of junior high school plus 2 years of

senior high school). The entrant age for kindergarten is five. Students are thus expected to

graduate at age of 18.

In pursuit of a strengthened curriculum, several reforms were provided in the EBEA, which

include: (1) the spiral progression approach, (2) putting up career tracks as part of the senior

high school including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Strand of the

Academic Track, and Technical-Vocational Track, (3) the Mother Tongue Based – Multilingual

Education (MTB-MLE).

The spiral progression approach’s objective is to impart knowledge in a less compact and more

temporally distributed way. Basic knowledge will be taught in the early years of education and

will be used as building blocks to add more complex concepts in the succeeding years. For

example, in the old education program, biology is taught in 2nd year high school, chemistry in 3rd

and physics in the 4th year. Under the K-12 program, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Earth

Sciences will be taught at all grade levels in elementary and junior high school with the topics

changing every quarter and the complexity increasing as the student moves up to the higher

grades.

Career tracks in senior high school (SHS; grades 11 and 12) will define the subjects students

will have to master. Each student may choose among three tracks: Academic, Technical-

AGHAM Advocates of Science and Technology for the People 127B Scout Fuentebella St. Brgy. Sacred Heart, Quezon City Telephone: +632 998 4226 E-mail: secretariat@agham.org URL: www.agham.org

Page 2 of 11

Vocational-Livelihood, and Sports and Arts. The Academic Track has three strands under it:

Business, Accountancy and Management (BAM); Humanities, Education, Social Science

(HESS); and Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM). Aside from the track

subjects, subject content under a core curriculum will have to be undergone by all senior high

school students.

Under the MTB-MLE scheme, the primary language of instruction from kindergarten to Grade 3

would be the students’ native/regional language. Filipino and English will subsequently be

introduced and will replace the native language as primary language of instruction at secondary

school.

According to the Philippine government, K-12 was designed to improve the competency of

Filipino graduates. While on the surface this could be laudable, a critical assessment of the

components of the K-12 program, especially with regards to the Vocational Course Track,

reveals a malevolent drive to produce “exportable” Filipino workers.

A quick look at the government’s K-12 website reveals that the word “learning” appears 11

times. Meanwhile “employ” (including employment and employee) appears 14 times.

Representative Rosenda Ocampo of Manila and sponsor of the K-12 House bill frankly states

that, “...ang pagtukoy sa mga kurso sa ilalim ng programang K to 12 ay idinidikta ng

pangangailangan, at ng job market...ang mga bansang industriyalisado at mas mayayaman ay

may paparaming bilang ng matatanda na nangangailangan ng pag-aalaga, at ito ang dahilan

kaya tayo may caregiving courses.” (the choice of courses in the K-12 program is dictated by

the job market...the industrialized and developed nations have a growing senile population

needing care, which is why we have caregiving courses).

K-12 kicked off on school year 2012-2013, with the compulsory kindergarten program starting a

year earlier.

K-12 would not solve the systematic maladies of science and math education

The “quality” of our science and math education as perceived by corporate interests jumped

from rank of 96th (out of 144 countries) for the year 2013 to a rank of 70th for the year 2014, as

the data from the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitive Index suggests. The jump

coincides with the first year of the K-12 implementation. Before the implementation of the K-12

program, changes in the country’s rank were minimal.

However, even if the Philippines ranks 70th in the world, science and Technology education in

the Philippines has been historically weak, which persists until now.

According to the 2003 Trends in Mathematics and Science Survey, we are 34th out of 38

countries in high school math; 43rd out 46 countries in high school science; and 23rd out of 25

countries in both grade school math and science. Nine years later this poor performance hasn’t

improved at all, based on the results of the 2012 National Achievement Test. In the science part

of the exam 41.58% of examinees scored below average (the other large chunk, at 49.95% of

examinees scored average), which is a sad reflection of the overall state of the country’s basic

education program.

This wobbly foundation in basic science and math education translates to low number of

enrollees in these disciplines. According to the data of the Commission on Higher Education

(CHED), only 0.49% of the total enrollees from 2001-2012 entered mathematics-related

programs while only 0.97% were enticed to pursue courses in natural science.

The government claims that the K-12 program will remedy our education system’s deteriorating

situation, especially in the field of science and technology. An investigation of the past

educational system however reveals that the problem is deeper, symptomatic of institutional

maladies and involving many sectors of society. By not directly addressing these root causes,

K-12 will only aggravate rather solve the deterioration of our educational system.

The poor state of our science and math education can be attributed to the following causes: a)

inadequate science curriculum which does not promote a strong science culture; b)

shortcomings in teachers’ capacity-building and c) shortages in basic education facilities,

particularly science laboratories and equipment.

a) inadequate science curriculum and weak promotion of a strong science culture

One of the fundamental objectives of ensuring scientific literacy (and thus science education) in

a country is to produce citizens capable of adapting to a variety of situations and solving

problems through scientific thinking. Basic science education comes down to instilling into

students the ability to think and view the universe objectively and systematically. Even at the

early stages of education, curiosity and systematic exploration of the environment should be

encouraged.

If you ask any grade-schooler what he was taught at school during science classes, he’ll

probably recite with enthusiasm the facts and data he learned, content with “learning” from the

pages of a textbook rather than directly from nature.

Before the implementation of the K-12 program, the Philippines used the 2002 Basic Education

Curriculum and the 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC). Our student’s lackluster

performance in past international science and math tests shows that there is a problem with our

education system. A number of studies document that the BEC and SEC are partly to blame.

A report prepared by Carlo Magno (2011) for AUSAID concludes that the SEC, “lacks

opportunities to use science skills to support learners to solve problems, question, critique,

analyze, and evaluate scientific claims.” It noted several instances in the secondary level

science curriculum where certain topics were given unnecessary attention, in particular the

general history of chemistry and the origins of the atomic theory. It’s implied that such time

would have been better used in teaching the students how to use the concept (rather than how

the concept came to be). Several topics are covered in the curricula of other countries but not in

the BEC. In Philippine physics, topics like “circular motion, transistors and integrated circuits,

mass-energy equivalence, the wave equation and wave-particle duality” were not discussed. In

biology, students are not taught about, “disease, immunology, homeostasis, cell chemistry,

Page 4 of 11

gene expression, and human evolution.” The report adds that in secondary school biology, the

only bio-related technology that students are exposed to is a simple light microscope.

A discussion paper published by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2005)

remarks that the BEC is overcrowded in subjects and insensitive to the varied ethnic

backgrounds of the students. This leads many students to lose focus and resort to memorization

in order to pass.

In a relatively backward country like ours, where superstitious belief and metaphysical thinking

are still very prevalent, students will find it harder to reconcile scientific objectivity and the

metaphysical culture he grew up with.

Clearly an overhaul of the BEC and SEC is needed, but the spiral curriculum system spread

over multiple years that the government is proposing might do more harm than good.

The rationale behind this is that students can be taught a simple concept at the beginning, with

the complexity of the topics increasing year after year. A short review or revisit of previous

topics helps student recall and prepares them for the more complex lessons to come.

But as noted by one academic, the spiral curriculum’s “implementation needs to be more

compressed. It can be and is much more powerful when scaled down to fit the individual

classroom or grade level.” Extending and spreading scientific topics across such a long period

prevents students from engaging in the intense, focused praxis needed to achieve a mastery in

science.

This practical component is what is severely lacking in both our old curriculum and the new one.

The practical work aspect allows, “learners to deal with the contents in depth in the classroom or

mostly in science laboratories.” A 2005 study comparing the (old) Philippine and Japanese

educational systems commented that “the use of science practical works is highly emphasized

in the Japan science curriculum while the Philippine science curriculum emphasizes health

education and Filipino values.”

The topic and concepts of K-12’s spiral curriculum have also not been divided in order of

increasing complexity. Many of the topics are related to each to other horizontally. For example,

in the subject Parts and functions of animal and plants, the different organ systems, the

Digestive, Respiratory, Excretory Systems are studied in Grade 8 while the circulatory, nervous,

and endocrine systems are studied in the higher years when knowledge on one organ system is

not a prerequisite for learning other organ systems.

The table below is a summary of K-12’s science subjects for Grade 7 to 10.

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10

Properties and Structure of

Matter

Properties of Solutions, Distinguishing different

solutions

Particulate nature of matter (Atomic

Theory), Periodic Table of Elements

Chemical reactions and bonds : Ionic, covalent, metallic,

The Mole

Kinetic Molecular Theory (Gas Laws), Organic Molecules

Changes that Matter

Undergo

Elements, Compounds, metals, non-metals,

acids, and bases

Phase Changes, Conservation of

Mass Compounds

Chemical Reactions, Conservation of Mass

Parts and Function:

Animal and Plants

Cell as Unit of Life and Levels of Organization

Digestive, Respiratory,

Excretory Systems

Digestive, Respiratory, and

Circulatory systems

Nervous and Endocrine System

Heredity: Inheritance

and Variation Asexual Reproduction Mitosis and Meiosis

Genes and Chromosomes

DNA and Inheritance

Biodiversity and Evolution

Animal and Plant Cells Species Extinction Natural Selection

Ecosystem Populations Energy and Material

cycles Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration

Human impacts on the environment

Force and Motion and

Distance, Speed, Acceleration, One

Dimensional motion graph

Newton’s Law of Motion,

Conservation of Energy (in terms of

Work)

Conservation of Momentum, Projectile

Motion

Static and Dynamic equilibrium of bodies

Energy Different forms of energy

Energy transfer, temperature,

current, speed of sound

Conservation of Mechanical Energy,

Heat and Work,

Optics, Electric and Magnetic Fields

b. Shortcomings in teachers' competency on science and math

A CHED research on the competence of pre-service science teachers (PT) from four Teacher

Education Institution (TEI) showed worrying results.

Chemistry pre-service teachers scored low in their understanding of the foundational concepts

of chemistry, especially with regards to the atomic and molecular nature of matter.

Biology PT’s fared a little better, with more than half of test subjects showing an understanding

of biological processes (e.g. how the food we eat is transformed into muscular energy).

However, many do not have a grasp of the concept of randomness with regards to biological

system (e.g. how random mutations affect the evolution of a certain species). As the paper

noted, this is an essential view for comprehending the subtleties of biology.

For physics PT’s the assessment revealed a lack of analytical skills, showing an inability to

apply, synthesize, and evaluate different physics concepts together.

Page 6 of 11

The results of the Licensure Exam for Teachers (LET) confirms the CHED study, revealing that

the problem persists throughout the country and across other teacher specializations and

subjects. From the August 2014 LET, only 35.74% of elementary school teacher examinees

passed. Performance for secondary school teacher examinees is almost the same, with only

34.4% passing.

It would be wrong to place the blame on the teacher’s themselves. The quality of training and

preparation that they received from their respective TEI should also be taken into account. This

is confirmed by CHED Memorandum Order No. 32 (2010) which placed a nationwide

moratorium on the opening of teacher education courses for the school year 2011-2012. The

memorandum cited the proliferation of substandard teacher schools which, “if allowed to

continue unabated would result to the deterioration of the quality of graduates.”

In 2012, the administration of the Test of English Proficiency for Teachers (TEPT) and Process

Skills Test (PST) in Science and Mathematics to all permanent Grade I and II public school

teachers was issued through DepED Memorandum No. 12, S. 2012.

The Process Skills Test (PST) in Science and Mathematics is a 40-item multiple choice test to

be taken for an hour. It is comprised of processing skills such as observing; classifying;

inferring; predicting; measuring/quantifying; communicating; interpreting data; analyzing data;

evaluating; experimenting; making conclusions; making models; and defining operationally.

The Teachers’ Mean Performance in the PST in all regions, is low with only 26% - 50%

proficiency level. The results of the 117,728 examinees show that 62% of the teachers have

poor process skills which they used predominantly in teaching science and mathematics.

Even if the problem of math and science education has already been identified, there has not

been a substantial government intervention through trainings and programs that addressed the

problem.

c.) shortages in science laboratories and other facilities

Although the DepED claims that the K-12 curriculum is centered on an inquiry-based approach,

present material realities could render any reform ineffective. Data from the Department of

Education reveals a serious lack of science laboratories. Only 4.8% of all public elementary

schools have their own science lab. Regional variations reflect the uneven development

between city and province. In NCR, roughly 42% of elementary schools have a science lab

compared to a measly 2.3% for ARMM. Secondary schools fare better, with around 50% of

secondary public schools nationwide having their own science lab.

A separate statistic from DOST-SEI director Ester Ogena reveals an even more appalling

perspective: on average, a science lab in the Philippines is shared by 1,325 students! Students

don’t need an expensive science lab to learn and understand the basics.

However in order for them to keep pace with today’s lightning advances in science and

technology, they must have access to quality equipment and facilities. Take Biology as an

example: plant growth and morphology can be taught outdoors but for students to understand

the processes that enable plants to grow, they must be acquainted with cells and for that they

need a microscope.

The shortage in science laboratories and other facilities are a result of lack of adequate national

budget for education.

The 2015 National Expenditure Program increased the DepEd budget by 12.5% to P339.3 billion. Budgetary increments can be traced to the a much higher budget for operations, with significant increments going to the following expenditure items: (1) operations of schools, P15.4 billion; (2) provision of learning resources (e.g., textbooks, science and math equipment, DepEd computerization program), P7.7 billion; and (3) provision and maintenance of basic education facilities, P8.2 billion. Despite the budget increase, the predicted share of education to GDP is only 2.5% for 2015, way below the UN’s recommended share of 6% of the GDP. Following UN standards would require us to allocate about Php 800 billion or 30% of the national budget.1 This is not entirely impossible. In fact compared to other developing countries, the Philippines has a low tax-GDP ratio (at around 15.6% of the GDP as of 2013). This means that there are potential domestic resources to further fund education. UNESCO estimates that a modest increase in tax collection would result in enough funds to push education spending to 4.5% of the GDP (UNESCO, 2014). In comparison, Vietnam spends 6.6% of its GDP to education thanks to its 28% tax-GDP ratio.

1The IMF predicts the Philippine GDP for 2015 at $ 330.259 billion in current prices.

Page 8 of 11

Towards a Nationalist, Scientific and Mass-oriented Educational Program

To reverse the many crises in our education, dropping NAT scores, low enrollment in science and engineering, poor understanding of science, what is now required is a drastic overhaul of our educational system. Instead of a K-12 program that aims to produce a nation of employees for export, what is needed is a nation with highly developed scientific culture that embraces the quest for knowledge through systematic means and methodologies to promote the welfare of the majority. We need an education system that is vigorous in the development of its citizens’ capacity to shape their lives and propel their country towards holistic economic and social development. The country needs to develop and deploy an educational system that is nationalist, scientific and mass-oriented. A nationalist education program strives, in the words of the late Renato Constantino, for the country’s “economic emancipation, political independence and cultural renaissance.” The goal of such educational system would be to produce critical, empowered, and proactive citizens rather than exportable docile labourers. Such an educational program would instill in our students values that are being eroded in this era of globalization: respect for the dignity of labour and rights of indigenous people, reverence for the environment, love for one’s culture, an appreciation of the commons, and ultimately a predisposition for solidarity over individualism. A nationalist education system in particular would push for the use of our native languages, both in the vernacular and academic setting. The adoption of the English language as the primary mode of instruction has curtailed the nationalistic essence of the Philippines educational system. It served as the mode through which the United States conveyed its domination over the whole cultural superstructure of our country. This form of colonization is being propagated in the Philippines through the K-12 system. Ignoring several researches identifying the acceptability and appropriateness of using Filipino, English still remain as the medium of instruction in the new educational system. The mother-tongue based multi-lingual scheme under the K-12 does not necessarily uphold nationalism and cultural preservation since it is promoted only in the early years of education and will be eased by the introduction and subsequent domination of English and Filipino (Filipino will be the medium of instruction for only a selected number of subjects). The child’s formative years (Grade 1-2) will be focused on the development of oral and communication skills. Science would be taught much later at Grade 3. This set-up is strangely convenient for the country’s foreign dominated Business Processing Outsource and service industries. If the government was serious about the promotion of native languages, there should be support and opportunity to use the local tongue in more advanced and technical subjects. Such an effort would advance and further intellectualize the dynamics of our local languages. This is not entirely impossible as developed (and technology oriented) countries like Japan and Russia regularly publish scientific papers in their native tongue. A Mass-oriented educational program aims to cultivate a populace with high regards for domestic and indigenous knowledge-generation. It puts forth the needs of its own people and is sensitive to their experiences. Students of a mass-oriented educational program do not only

strive to help the most vulnerable but to empathize with the weakest as well, appreciating the wisdom that the masses have accumulated in their practice of living and struggle. It is fighting not for the poor but with the poor. In this way, we can concretize the lessons taught in school, reversing the abstractions that science and math are notorious for. We can thus motivate students by showing them how exactly they can engage and contribute to Filipino society. A scientific educational program strives to develop knowledge and its use for the definite purpose of serving the needs of the country through the promotion of national industries. Thus it aims to generate the highest possible number of quality scientists, technologists and engineers. Every conceivable way to achieve this must be pursued. This means just wage for teachers, the use of required facilities and the promotion of higher education in the fields of agriculture, science and engineering through affordable and state supported infrastructures. Building such a system is possible, even with a “developing” nation budget. Cuba, a small Caribbean nation, that leads Latin America in Primary Math and Science performance, by investing as much as 10% of its GDP to education despite having an economy that is ten times smaller than ours has shown that political and economic shortages are no hindrance to a committed government.

Strengthening the science and math education goes hand and hand with national industrialization The problems of science and math education in the country is not detached from the overall problem of basic education and the Philippine society as a whole. Unless these fundamental problems, including the lack of teachers and facilities, commercialization, and state neglect are addressed, science and math competencies of the Filipino children would never have the chance to flourish. An exceptional basic science and math education would be useless if it is not used for the benefit of the people through its application to basic industries. At present any development (or maldevelopment) in the quality and quantity of our science graduates would only benefit developed countries, as many of our scientists and engineers opt to work abroad or for the local subsidiary of a multinational company. There is a need for national domestic industries to create a demand for scientists, technologists and engineers within the country. Such a demand would spur further improvements in our science education programs. Advanced industries generally require scientists and technologists with greater skills and expertise. Unless there is a genuine program for national industrialization to be served by the country's educational system, programs such as K-12 are just extensions and variations of the existing rotten system. In the immediate, the inadequate science curriculum, lack of strong science culture; teachers' competencies, shortages in basic education facilities such as science laboratories and low educational budget could be addressed by government interventions which genuinely seeks to improve the country's educational program.

Page 10 of 11

References

Bernardo, A. (1999), Overcoming Obstacles to Understanding and Solving Word Problems in Mathematics [Abstract]. Educational Psychology, 19(2). Retrieved on January 22, 2015 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341990190203?journalCode=cedp20#.VMBuFGSUdK8

Commission on Higher Education (2010). CHED Memorandum Order No. 32. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from: http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CMO-No.32-s2010.pdf

Commission on Higher Education (2010). Higher Education Indicator as of July 24, 2012. Retrieved on January 22, 2015 from http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Higher-Education-Indicator-as-of-July-24-2012.pdf

Constantino, R. (1970). The Miseducation of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia 1(1). Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from http://eaop.ucsd.edu/198/groupidentity/THE%20MISEDUCATION%20OF%20THE%20FILIPINO.pdf

de Dios, Angelo C. (2015, January 10). Did We Totally Misunderstand What A Spiral Curriculum Should Be? [Web log]. Retrieved on January 22, 2015 from http://philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2015/01/did-we-totally-misunderstand-what.html

Department of Education (2013). K-12 Curriculum Guide Science. Retreieved on January 22, 2015 from lrmds.deped.gov.ph/download/3289

Freire, Paulo (1978). Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea Bissau.

Gibbs, B.C. (2014) Reconfiguring Bruner: Compressing the Spiral Curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(7). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://pdk.sagepub.com/content/95/7/41.full

Lee-Chua, Q. (2010, October 17). Science laboratory on wheels. Inquirer. Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/learning/view/20101017-298240/Science-laboratory-on-wheels

Magno, C. (2011) Analysis of the Basic Education of the Philippines: Implications for the K to 12 Education Program. Retrieved January 20, 2015 from http://www.academia.edu/3814475/Analysis_of_the_Basic_Education_of_the_Philippines_

Maligalig, D. S., Albert J. G. (2005) Measures for Assessing Basic Education in the Philippines, PIDS Discussion Paper Series. Retrieved on January 19, 2015 from http://saber.eaber.org/sites/default/files/documents/PIDS_Maligalig_2008.pdf

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). Findings From IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Retrieved on January 22, 2015 from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03_S_Chap1.pdf

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). Findings From IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Retrieved on January 22, 2015 from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03_M_Chap2.pdf

Padama, E., Gallardo, A., Lacuata, F., Lamorena, M., Navaza, D., Nueva Espana, R., ... Prudente, M. (2014). Practices of Teacher Education Institutions in Science Education. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(11). Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.ijern.com/journal/2014/November-2014/29.pdf

Pawilen, G. (2005). A Comparative Study of the Elementary Science Curriculum of Philippines and Japan. Ehime University Faculty of Education Bulletin 1(52). Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from http://www.ed.ehime-u.ac.jp/~kiyou/2005/pdf/19.pdf

San Juan, D.M. (2013). Kaisipang Nasyonalista at Teoryang Dependensiya sa Edukasyon: Ideolohikal na Kritik ng Programang K to 12 ng Pilipinas. MALAY, 26(1)