By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
This is a letter I emailed to Clarissa David, one of the three Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) researchers who did the report “Pressures on Public School Teachers and Implications on Quality” on July 29, 2019. I have yet to receive an answer and most likely will never do. By now I am getting used to being snubbed because more than half my letters to individuals and offices relative to issues involving the Department of Education (DepEd) specially to officials of the agency in all three island groups are ignored.
Here goes:
“The undersigned, a correspondent of the Manila Times, considers your report “Pressures on Public School Teachers and Implications on Quality” heaven-sent because people specially DepEd officials can no longer dismiss the findings of the media on the decline of reading skills of public school children as exaggerated or baseless because of the confirmation from the state think tank.
“However, he would just want to ask a couple of questions if you do not mind:
First, what was the basis for using the word “stronger” in reference to the advice to be issued against the practice of sending non-readers to high school? Has the DepEd already taken initial action against the practice prior to your research? What form the action took and when was it made?
“Second, what was the basis for your setting Grade 7 as the level non-readers should be off limits to? The undersigned asks because his understanding is that under the K-12 curriculum, pupils are supposed to learn to read English, the last language they must learn to read, in Grade 3 and in the Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP) of the DepEd per DepEd Memorandum 324, series of 2004, a copy of which is attached, children are not supposed to be promoted to Grade 4 unless they are already independent readers.
“The undersigned’s other purpose in writing is also to inform you just in case you are not aware that based on the reactions of members of the DepEd Community Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Teachers-Community-261906981260317/?ref=br_tf&epa=SEARCH_BOX (please scroll down to June 29, 2019 posts) to the Manila Times article “DepEd urged to stop sending non-readers to high school,” your recommendation struck a chord among teachers. As of today, the post has 8.8K Likes and was shared 7.4K times. A great majority of the comments in the forum and likewise the box listing the names of those who shared approve of your recommendation.
“Sadly, however, DepEd has not uttered a word on that part of your report albeit and ironically, as reported in your website, its representative during the March 6, 2019 Senate hearing had talked about attending to some of the education issues the PIDS had recently raised.”
I remembered this letter when I saw DepEd Order No. 021, series of 2019, titled “Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program” which I reported to you in this space two issues ago. The guideline mentions reading and writing among the content standards of Grade 1 Filipino while “reading of texts for pleasure and information critically in meaningful thought units” and “reading with comprehension” are skills to be attained in English in Grades 2 and 3, respectively. And one of the objectives of the Grades 4 to 6 program is “Further enhancement of literacy and numeracy skills as preparation for the academic demands of high school.”
Nothing could be clearer than that – under the K to 12 Curriculum, children are supposed to be readers in Grade 3 under. Granting a leeway is allowed under the K to 12 Program, must it take the entire time between Grade 3 and the end of Grade 6 for the DepEd to finally get the job done?
Thus, I am truly puzzled why the government think tank, instead of reminding DepEd of this fact, chose to suggest to the agency to stop sending non-readers to high school. It is ridiculous to attribute the recommendation of the PIDS to ignorance of the K to 12 Program timetable for teaching and learning of reading because how could researchers be so careless as to come up with solutions without making sure of the context and facts first?
I think this calls for another letter this time for clarification on what PIDS was trying to accomplish with its recommendation and hoping that the communication would not suffer the same fate as the first.**
