Alegado, Gem Loren S.

11186534 Reaction Paper ANC CVC Law Debate RE: K + 12 Education Reform

Constitunal Law II Atty. Ricardo Sunga

One of the topics on ANC CVC Law Debate where DLSU competed against NCU is about the K + 12 Education Reform. The DLSU Law sides with the negative. K + 12 Education Reform adds two more additional years in the basic education of the students which according to the Department of Education, will benefit not only the Filipino youth, but also the Philippines as well. This proposal is part of the reform programs under Aquino s administration. They assert that with the implementation of such program, it will help the problems of unemployment and it will also aid us in keeping at par in terms of the standard of education and level of global competency in other countries. But does this program really help the Philippines promote a better education system? Or would this project just make the lives of the Filipino worse? In my opinion, the K + 12 Education Reform should really be set aside first since there are other pertinent issues concerning education that the country needs to deal with. Primary, most of our public schools lack classrooms, school buildings and teachers. It is very important to consider these things since adding two more years entails the use of more classrooms. Not only that, the government also fails to provide school materials such as books, and textbooks for students. The government should supply first adequate classrooms that are conducive for learning and sufficient materials for them to gain knowledge. Another inadequacy that they need to deal with is the number of the teachers in public schools. It is very important that they maintain the right ratio of teacher per student to ensure effective learning. Nowadays, teachers prefer to go abroad than to teach here in our country due to the very low compensation that they receive. Thus, there is a shortage of who to educate our students. Another issue that the K + 12 Education Reform needs to face are the plight of the parents, that adding two more years means spending more. The additional two years means two years of additional tuition fees, allowance, school supplies, uniforms, and other fees that are school related are quite heavy for them especially to those who earn below the minimum wage. Instead of expecting their children to graduate in 10 years, and being able to help them in their household expenses, they still have two more years to study. There is nothing wrong in aiming for such improvements, in fact, it will really help our country in different ways but I think that the government needs to address certain scarcities first, especially in our public schools, and consider if we really need to apply such program, especially with our situation today. Education is one of the most top priorities of our government, and this step may really help our country produce more global and competitive graduates, but I think that we have to work on with the quality of our education first before adding two more years to it.