By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
For those not yet aware of the issue, we have an expanding population of non-readers and frustration level readers in our public elementary and high schools. This is unprecedented and very alarming because 20 years ago, non-readers in Grade 2 in public schools were very rare and they do not still have any in private schools these days. Here are some references: “DepEd data on non-readers ‘premature’, inconclusive,” Manila Bulletin, February 18, 2020 – there are 71,470 non-readers in 13 divisions and of this number, 56,197 are in elementary and 14,289 are in secondary; “Filipino subject top among Grade 6, 10 Baguio learners,” Baguio Midland Courier, November 24, 2019 – there are 52 Grade 7 non-readers in Baguio City for SY 2018-2019; “Lawmakers hit DepEd for low proficiency rates in PH” posted in the CNN Philippines website on September 12, 2019 – 24.07 percent of elementary and high schools fall under the category of frustration level readers . In February 2019, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies in its policy note “Pressures on Public School Teachers and Implications on Quality” has suggested to the Department of Education (DepEd) to stop sending non-readers to high school.
WHY ARE THERE NO NON-READERS IN GRADE 2 IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS WHILE THERE ARE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATES WHO CANNOT READ?
Private schools stick to the “No Read, No Move” Policy under which no pupil who cannot read can move to Grade 2 while public schools no longer practice any reading cut off policy. The Department of Education (DepEd) switched from the “No Read, No Move” Policy to the “Zero Non-reader in Grade 4” Policy in the early 2000s but eventually stopped the enforcement of any reading cut off. The K to 12 Curriculum does not have a reading cut off unlike all previous curricula.
ANY PROOF THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS DO NOT PRACTICE ANY READING CUT OFF?
Going by the Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP), every learner who cannot read from Grade 4 onwards is a proof that the DepEd is not applying any reading cut off. The ECARP is the DepEd’s flagship reading program dating back to 2001 which “enforces the policy that every child should be a reader by Grade 3 and that no child shall be promoted to the next higher grade unless he/she manifests mastery of basic literacy skills” (DepEd Memorandum No. 324, series of 2004).
The respective decisions of the regional offices of the DepEd in the NCR, CAR and Region X to come up with their own “No Read, No Pass” Policies also prove the fatal refusal of the DepEd to leave Grades 4 upwards open to illiteracy. DepEd-CAR Regional Memoranda No. 013-2020 and 70-2020 and DepEd-Region X Regional Memorandum No. 153, series of 2020, enforces DepEd Order No. 45, series of 2002, which implements the BEC reading cut off policy.
WHAT IS DEPED ORDER NO. 45, SERIES OF 2002?
DepEd Order No. 45, series of 2002, was the reading cut off policy of the BEC. As defined in DepEd Memorandum No. 324, series of 2004, implementing the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), DepEd Order No. 45, series of 2002, “enforces the policy that every child should be a readers by Grade 3 and that no pupil shall be promoted to the next higher grade unless he or she manifests mastery of basic literacy skills.” As implied in the action of the DepEd-NCR, DepEd-CAR and DepEd-Region X to issue their own policy on reading cut off, the K to 12 Curriculum has no equivalent of DepEd Order No. 45, series of 2002.
WHAT DOES THE K TO 12 CURRICULUM SAY AS TO WHEN THE CHILD SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ?
The curriculum assigns the learning of reading skills in the Mother Tongue in Grade 1 and in Filipino and English beginning in the first and second semester of Grade 2, respectively, but there is no instruction or policy which states that children who are unable to read at the end of Grades 1 and 2 should be retained.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROMISE OF THE MOTHER TONGUE POLICY TO MAKE IT EASIER AND QUICKER FOR CHILDREN TO LEARN TO READ IN THEIR MOTHER TONGUE, FILIPINO AND ENGLISH?
It is a total failure. In fact, the country has never seen more non-readers and frustration readers in our elementary and high school than when the K to 12 and Mother Tongue policy went into effect. This is very ironic because successful and timely teaching of reading makes up two-thirds of the Mother Tongue policy’s alleged benefits as follows:
“First, learners learn to read more quickly when in their first language (LI);
Second, pupils who have learned to read and write in their first language learn to speak, read, and write in a second language (L2) and third language (L3) more quickly than those who are taught in a second or third language first; and
Third, in terms of cognitive development and its effects in other academic areas, pupils taught to read and write in their first language acquire such competencies more quickly.”
DepEd Order No. 74, series of 2020”
WHY IS THE MTB-MLE NOT DELIVERING ON ITS READING PROMISE?
There are other reasons but what stands out is the absurd way the K to 12 Curriculum seeks to realize the alleged MTB-MLE advantage. It sets the start of the learning of reading in Filipino and in English in the first and second semester of Grade 2 by which time, pupils in private schools and those who studied under the previous language policies were already reading for some months having been readers in English and Filipino at the end of Grade 1.
This timetable of teaching second and third language is very damaging because teachers and schools can now point to the curriculum as the cause for school children not being able to read in English in Grade 1 unlike in the BEP where the fault lied in the laxity of DepEd policy.**(To be continued)
