For millions of Filipinos, kindergarten and other preparatory courses before first grade used to give

children with financial means an early edge in academic achievements over their underprivileged peers.
With the enactment of Republic Act 10533, kindergarten is now free for all Filipinos and required for entry
to first grade.
The next step is for authorities to ensure that poverty and other problems will not keep parents from
sending their children to kindergarten and keeping them in school. The new law also makes the mother
tongue the medium of instruction up to third grade, with English being phased in at fourth grade. This
should help discourage pupils from dropping out due to language comprehension difficulties, although the
bigger reason for leaving school is poverty.
While basic education is free and compulsory, studies show that the dropout rate remains high, starting in
third grade and increasing in high school. Even if education is free, millions of families cannot afford even
the daily transportation fare, food allowance and miscellaneous expenses for keeping a child in school.
With two years added to secondary education, many students may fail to get a high school diploma.
Under RA 10533, students will be prepared to pursue either vocational courses, which offer quick
employment opportunities, or regular college courses. The government can fine-tune the program to
reduce the current mismatch between skills and job requirements in many local industries.
A lot of time, effort and resources went into the development of the K to 12 program, now embodied in RA
10533 or the Basic Education Program law. The measure is meant to upgrade Philippine education,
whose quality has deteriorated in recent decades, and improve national competitiveness. Every effort
must be made to ensure the success of its implementation.

Lead with an objective explanation of the issue. The body of your work should
explain the issue objectively, as a reporter would, and tell why this situation is important
to the reader or community as a whole.[1]

Include who, what, when, where, why, and how. Cover all your bases and pull in
facts or quotations from relevant sources. This ensures that every reader has at least a
base knowledge (and an non-skewed one) of the topic at hand.

Present the opposing argument first. Make sure to identify the groups who oppose
you or else the movers of the debate will become foggy. State their opinions objectively,
using accurate facts or quotations. Never use slander.

It is fine to state positive things about the opposing side, if they are factual. It
shows that you are taking the moral high road and giving a balanced overview. If you

neglect to air the good side of your opposition, your editorial will come off biased and
uninformed.
Give the opposition an actual argument, and a strong one at that. You gain

nothing from refuting a non-issue. Make it clear their beliefs and what they're
advocating.
Present your reasons/evidence that directly refute the opposition. Begin this
section with a transition, clearly flowing from their argument to yours. Utilize facts and
quotations from others who support your opinion.

Start with strong reasons that only get stronger. Don't feel limited to existing
opinions--add your own, too. Whatever your reasons are, make sure to clearly
come down on one side of the argument; there is no room for gray area here.

Literary allusions are appropriate. It can lend to your credibility and learnedness.
[1]

Call to mind images of persons or times in the past that present an imagery to

your reader.
Make your solution known. This is different than reasons and evidence. If you believe
cutting the defense budget is wrong, what would you rather cut instead? Putting your
solution out there is imperative to addressing the problem. If you don't have one, any
solution is better than yours.

Your solution needs to be clear, rational, and doable. It cannot only work in a
vacuum. What's more, it should be compelling. Ideally, your readers will be drawn

to action with the information and answers you've presented.

Conclude your editorial with a punch. A note-worthy statement would forever engrave
the editorial into the reader's mind. Use quotes or a question that would make the
readers think hard. (e.g. If we will not take care of the environment, then who will?)

End with a hard-hitting summary; you may have a few readers who scanned your
piece absent-mindedly. All in all, your audience should leave feeling more
informed and moved to do something further about the issue.

As a young professional in the workforce, I know that I am in the minority when I say that casual
attire has no place in a professional environment. After college, I job-hopped for a while before
finally landing a promising position with a leading insurance company. The job required
extremely infrequent face-to-face interaction with customers, so the dress code was business
casual. I understood and appreciated this requirement. However, when the powers that be

inexplicably abolished our dress code, I was shocked. The resulting change that Ive seen in
many of my colleagues has definitely been for the worse.
On the most basic level, attire has transitioned to completely casual. Most employees wear
jeans, and Ive seen the occasional pair that looks more like it belongs in the trash can than at
the office. Summer blouses have become more revealing. Footwear has become more beachlike. Questionable graphics, slogans, and political agendas are also in full display. In possibly
the most disturbing fallout, when dressing up was thrown to the wayside, so, unfortunately, was
a few peoples hygiene.
The effect of the obvious change in attire is the resulting impact to the companys image. While
the dress code alone might not be a problem, it is somewhat startling in light of the fact that the
small amount of customer contact has remained unchanged. Not to mention, employees dine
out for lunch wearing their badges, and all of their neighbors know where they work. What kind
of message does that send? Also, I cant help but notice the disapproving looks from the local
management, many of whom may not have been completely on board with the directive from
corporate.
Next, Ill speak to productivity (mine included). It seems as though dressing casually has led to
approaching other aspects of the job more casually as well. A general lack of formality has
made people more inclined to chat with coworkers, surf the internet, and just generally blow off
work. It also falls short of fostering a climate of respect for the company, its customers, and
each other.
Im sure much can be said for the benefits of allowing employees to dress as they wish. Theres
no doubt the higher-ups of my company did extensive research to evaluate the improvement to
morale, reduced cost to the company, open lines of communication between employees and
management, etc. However, those of us on the front lines know whats really going on. While we
enjoy coming to work in our slippers, these sunglasses are really just hiding the fact that were
sitting here napping as were slumped down in our chairs after our two-hour lunch.

2 cups of hot water

1 teaspoon of salt
1 teaspoon of coconut oil
1 teaspoon of hair gel
1 spray bottle
Twist hair then spray