The Manila Times
THE BIGGEST LOSERS IN POOR TEACHER EDUCATION
by : Dr Carl E. Balita
THERE is no need to reiterate how Filipino learners ranked
poorly in the Program for International Student Assessment. Vice President and
Education Secretary Sara Duterte bluntly admitted in the Basic Education Report
that “the Filipino learners are not academically proficient.” As
there is an ongoing Education Commission, every stone is being turned to
formulate policy changes and take urgent action to what is already a learning
crisis. And the blame game is on.
One target for improvement is teacher education. At a recent Senate
hearing, Dr. Edizon Fermin, the chairman of the Teacher Education Council,
mentioned the drafting of a Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) memorandum
order on the gradual phaseout of teacher education institutions (TEIs) that are
low-performing in the Board Licensure Examination for Professional Teachers
(Blept) and the noncomplaint TEIs. This initiative is commendable but raises
many issues.
For the past 10 years, from 2013 to recent 2023, twice a year,
the Professional Regulation Commission-Board of Professional Teachers gave the
Blept to a total of 1,116,601 graduates of elementary education degrees where
354,802 (31.78 percent) became licensed professional teachers, and a total of
1,439,560 graduates of secondary education degrees where 605,605 (42.07
percent) passed across eight majorship or specialization areas.
Only licensed teachers are qualified to apply for ranking and
hiring of the Department of Education (DepEd). Only the best 1,315,209 (51
percent) of these 2,556,161 became available to teach in our government’s basic
education system.
In the March 2023 Blept, out of the 1,362 colleges and
universities offering teacher education, only 228 (21.15 percent) had a passing
rate of more than 75 percent. One hundred sixty schools had no or zero passers
(11.75 percent) in elementary education. In the same board examination, for
secondary education, only 309 (15.23 percent) out of 2,029 schools had a
passing rate of more than 75 percent, while 292 schools (14.40 percent) had no
or zero passing.
Aspiring teachers end up losing
The real loser in the “poor” performance of some TEI
in the Blept is not the basic education. Those who failed the board examination
cannot be blamed for the poor basic education outcomes. The real losers are the
aspiring teachers who did not and may still not make it to their licensure
examination over the years.
We all dreamed of becoming teachers sometime in our lives. And
many of these aspiring professional teachers come from low socioeconomic strata
of our society in remote areas where they are actually needed most. Encounters
with them will make one feel how much they are willing to learn and how much
they are intending to be the best teachers they wish they could be. They are
dreamers in the pursuit to be one with their dreams.
Looking into how teacher education can be improved is a
relevant, appropriate and timely endeavor. Commendable, indeed. But we have to
be considerate and compassionate in taking harsh actions like the phaseout of
poor performing TEIs based only on the Blept performance and compliance with
accreditation standards. Here are some areas worth considering related to the
proposed phaseout of the aforementioned teacher education institutions.
The phaseout does not change the fact that the students enrolled
for teacher education are products of basic education, which is a more
problematic area. Basic education may blame higher education for the kind of
teachers that teacher education produced, but higher education may attribute
such from the poor foundation that basic education provided those who enter
higher education.
The tri-focalization of the Philippine education system may have
good wisdom but only if they can be harmonized toward a shared vision. Are
DepEd, CHEd and even Tesda (Technical Education And Skills Development
Authority) talking and aligning? Did tri-focalization of education benefit the
system and the country?
Foundational and formative
Solution? Focus on the foundational and formative years in basic
education that guarantee the fundamental learning competencies of Filipinos as
lifelong learners in general. Educating college students is a hopeless attempt
if the formative years fail to make these young dreamers capable of learning to
learn. It may just be too late.
The phaseout is radical, but the question is, has CHEd enabled
these institutions through resources and support that it can provide, beyond
the pursuit of its regulatory role. It is easy to regulate given the highly
academic nature of the higher education system, but the fact remains that many
of these higher education institutions actually need help โ not only regulation
that makes them even more inferior and helpless. This is where the government
is needed โ enabling institutions to become successful with their vision and
mission to help aspiring Filipinos get a good education. Case in point here are
local community colleges, which are envisioned to bring education closer to the
people. They need all the help that they can get, including insulating them
from the selfish political agenda of their founders and funders.
Salary of Teachers
We need to attract the best and the brightest of our youth to be
teachers. Given the salary grade 11, or a take-home base salary of P27,000
(plus allowance of P2,000), will parents push their children to become
teachers? Many private schools are paying even less, as they are not required
to hire licensed teachers. Many teachers in private schools are mere minimum
wage earners.
Will young people, mindful of the teachers’ salary, pursue a
teaching career? The country, aware of the global demand for nurses and in
pursuit of the Nursing Law, is generous at giving nurses a salary grade of 15
(P36,000) with the desperate hope to keep them in the country. A patrolman in
the Philippine National Police or a fireman in the Bureau of Fire Protection is
getting basic pay of P29,668 plus allowances. This explains the influx of
enrollees in nursing and criminology programs.
A Filipino domestic helper in Hong Kong receives a minimum
monthly salary of HK$4,870 plus an allowance of HK$1,236 (equivalent to
P42,742). According to the Filipino teachers organization in Hong Kong, there
are not less than 3,000 Filipino teachers, many of whom are professionals,
working in Hong Kong as domestic helpers. Thailand is now attracting Filipino
teachers with its prevailing minimum salary offer equivalent to P34,000. Based
on reports, there are more than 20,000 Filipinos in Thailand, and more than
16,000 of them are working as teachers. They are in high demand as Thailand
envisions its people to speak English with the help of Filipino teachers.
PH has lowest paid teachers
In the Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), the
Philippines ranks as one of the lowest in terms of salary for teachers at only
$10,000 per annum, compared with Singapore ($80,000 per annum), Malaysia
($3,000 to $8,000), Thailand ($12,000 to $20,000) and even Indonesia ($12,000
to $18,000).
Now, how are we attracting the best and brightest to become
teachers? Let us be thankful that a lot are still in the pursuit of their
childhood dream inspired by the teachers they idolize.
The judgment of TEI’s worthiness to exist will be based on the
Blept performance of their graduates and their compliance with set standards.
The question is โ is the board examination a sufficient and valid tool to
measure the effectiveness of a teacher education program? Is there alignment in
the teacher education curriculum with the competency standards of the board and
the table of specification of the examination? Yes, in paper and in theory.
There is the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers crafted by some of
the most brilliant minds of the education sectors. But ask administrators and
examinees if there is such an alignment and one will get a more grounded
answer. Or better yet, are the standards realistic given many limitations in
the real school settings?
TEI Administrators are certainly wishing they could meet the
standards, but how will they do it with the limited resources they are given?
Furthermore, how are they to make magic of correcting the learning competencies
of their enrollees who did not get enough from their foundational education?
There is no entrance examination yet for teachers. It is one of those being
considered, but is that what we intend to do in the context of equitable
education?
The school is a dream academy of the Filipinos. The young
dreamers enter, conform and do their best to survive school, with their parents
making both ends meet to be able to support the dream they co-create with their
children. If this dream academy fails, do we blame these dreamers who did their
best in the pursuit of their dreams? Isn’t it that our government is supposed
to be our dream-catcher, with all of society in support?
Now, who are the biggest losers in what is labeled as poor
teacher education? The aspiring teachers were most willing to do everything and
did everything for four years in the pursuit of their dreams. We need to help
them. Save them. Catch them. Will closing the schools accessible to them and
affordable to them be the solution?
-END-