Extended Education Not a Panacea

by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera

Promising every Filipino access to education is a standard election promise that all candidates mouth off during the campaign. It is not surprising that educational reforms have become standard messages in the on-going presidential debates. Manny Villar wants to expand access to higher education, Dick Gordon promises to increase the monthly salary of teachers to P40,000, Noynoy Aquino wants quality textbooks, and Eddie Villanueva calls for an educational system anchored on moral standards.

What is surprising is that some candidates, perhaps in an attempt to put one better than their opponents, have started to promise the moon to the Filipino voters.

One such example is Noynoy Aquino’s proposal in the recent COCPEA presidential forum to add two more years to the education system purportedly to bring the country to global standards, increase the employability of graduates, and make our manpower internationally competitive.

Increasing the number of years in the educational system is not a new idea. Over the past four decades, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (1970), Presidential Commission on Education Reform (1999), and the Presidential Task Force on Education (2008) have proposed the extension of the basic education cycle to improve the content and relevance of basic education and make it internationally competitive.

But what is surprising is that Noynoy Aquino has proposed adding not just one but two additional years of education to every Filipino effectively converting us from a K-10 (kindergarten + 6 elementary + 4 high school) to a K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12) system.

Supporters of this proposal argue that the Philippines is the only Asian country with a 10-year basic education system. Others say students who stay in school longer perform better in international science and math achievement tests; that a long education cycle better prepares students for higher education and the job market, and higher levels of education attainment is strongly correlated to higher wages.

But is increasing the number of years in the school system the best educational reform for a poor country suffering from a continuing fiscal deficit? And are we not better off using our scarce resources to address existing educational problems and programs?

In fact, there are many existing education initiatives, such as early childhood education and the high school bridge program, that have not been fully implemented for lack of funding support. R.A. 8980 or the Early Childhood Care and Development Act of 2000 makes pre-school a prerequisite for enrolling in Grade 1 thus making pre-school education a government responsibility. Current Department of Education (DepEd) data shows that only half of children age 5 are in preschool and some P1.8B is needed to maintain the program at current levels.

The recent congressional hearings on the DepEd budget also showed that we need to build 66,881 classrooms (costing some P43B) and hire 64,060 teachers (based on 1:1 teacher-classroom ratio) just to accommodate our current school population.

And the Philippines, by its own admission, is already lagging behind in its Millennium Development Goal commitment of achieving universal primary education by 2015. The DepEd needs more than P15B annually just to find and bring all school-age children to school and keep them there.

Which brings me to my previous questions – how much money will be needed to add two years to the current education cycle and how does Noynoy Aquino propose to produce this amount given his promise not to raise taxes if elected president? (He has flip-flopped on this position). Remember that he has also promised universal preschool, one million GATSPE scholarships, and technical-vocation education in high schools.

There were no estimates given by Aquino in his speech, in his webpage, via his political supporters, or by his education experts. His quoted media response is to increase GDP by 2% and reclaim P280B from corruption to fund educational reform.

I find this posture fiscally irresponsible and politically pandering. It is also not clear how adding two years to the school system will make us globally competitive.

Even if we assume that the funding required can somehow be magically produced, wouldn’t it be better to spend the money to wipe out the classroom shortage, ensure that all 5 year old children are in preschool, fulfill our international commitment to achieve universal primary education, do school feeding programs, hire additional teachers, or reduce classroom size to improve student-to-teacher ratio and elevate student performance and achievement?

Perhaps the Ateneo-schooled presidential bet should spend a day at the Batasan Elementary School located just a few meters from his old House of Representatives office and experience first hand how more than 50 public school students are crammed in a classroom during the third shift at 7 o’clock in the evening. Then maybe he will realize that adding two more years to a public school student’s life is not the answer to making him internationally competitive, helping him find a decent job, or making his daily school experience bearable.

Gordon's Impossible (or Irresponsible) Dream

by Dr. Prospero E. de Vera

I have always liked Dick Gordon as the architect of the "Subic miracle", as a very articulate Senator who produced the computerization of elections law (among other advocacy's), and as a life-long Red Cross official who best exemplifies the meaning of the word "volunteer".

This admiration is one of the main reasons why I make it a point to exchange political tsismis with him every time I am in the Senate. And I am always amazed by his off-the-cuff commentaries on the floor debates and the side stories in the Senate.

Dick Gordon has made the plight of government workers (teachers and health workers in particular) one of the pillars of his Platform of Government. He promised to increase the salaries of teachers to P40,000/month in the early presidential debates. Lately, he extended his promise to health professionals who will get P50,000/month under a Gordon presidency.

As an underpaid educator teaching at the University of the Philippines, I am happy that he has decided to give the plight of public sector workers the much needed attention. The University has lost so many of its top-notch professors to the private sector and private universities because it simply can't provide competitive wages. This is the reason why UP officials batted for the exemption from the Salary Standardization Law when they were pushing for the UP Charter. UP got its wish, only to find out later that it could not produce the needed funds to increase salaries.

Upon closer examination, however, Gordon's proposal raises some very disturbing questions that if left unanswered, would show that his promise is a pipe dream, or worse, a terrible nightmare.

First, how much will his proposal cost and where will the money come from?

There are almost 600,000 public school teachers in the country today (www.deped.gov.ph/factsandfigures). The Department of Health (DOH) website has no data on health workers but one can imagine the huge number given the many tertiary and specialty hospitals in this country.

Multiply P40,000 x 600,000 teachers and P50,000 times the number of health workers and you get an idea of the cost of Gordon's proposal.

And it gets worse.

The 40,000/month salary of public school teachers will be higher than the monthly salary of a Full Professor at the University of the Philippines! And a UP Professor must have a PhD, must have published articles in recognized journals, and be judged by his/her peers are worthy of the title "Professor".

Increasing the pay of teachers and health workers will distort the current salary structure and fuel calls for an increase by other public sector workers.

And then imagine the cascading effect of a P40,000/monthly salary of a public school teacher on the rest of the 1.2 million public servants in this country.

Where will the money come from? Gordon has not provided any details.

Second, what will happen to the Salary Standardization Law III (SSL III) that is just being implemented?

The Senate has just passed a joint resolution empowering the Department of Budget and Management to rationalize the pay scale of government workers. Gordon was one of those who voted for this measure. Is his proposal now a new amendment to the SSL III which can not be fully implemented because of funding problems?

Thirds, increasing the salaries of public sector workers will worsen the already distorted personnel salary (PS) cost of the national budget.

Personnel salaries now account for more than 30% of the national budget. Some departments, like the DepEd, have PS costs that take up close to 90% of their budget.

Salaries of government personnel + the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of local governments + automatic appropriations for debt servicing now account for close to 80% of the budget.

Since the IRA allocation, debt servicing, and PS cost are protected by existing laws, any increase in government salaries will result in budget cuts for critical government programs.

Unless of course Gordon can provide additional funds through new taxes, rationalization of fiscal incentives, and of course the famous "I will reduce corruption".

Finally, assuming some funds will be available, aren't these funds better used to address critical development constraints on infrastructure; address classroom, teacher, and book shortages; modernize agriculture; or make us comply with our Millennium Development Goals obligations?

Running for the Presidency requires the presentation of clear and implementable promises. Gordon needs to provide specifics on his promises. Otherwise, his fiscal irresponsibility will only produce impossible dreams.