REACTION PAPER

This pandemic—along with the many overlapping pandemics our nation now
faces, including racial, economic, political and environmental injustices—has also
heightened existing barriers between families and schools.

The Philippine government’s decision to again decline the opening of face-to-

face classes reflects the difficulties it is encountering in addressing the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic. When COVID-19 lockdowns were imposed in March 2020
across the country, classes in most schools were already ending. Thus, the
disruption caused by the pandemic to the learning of most students was minimal.

As the public health crisis intensified, the traditional June or August opening of
classes was moved to October and now, the School Year 2021-2022 started last
September 13, 2021. This was seen by almost all stakeholders as necessary to
ensure the safety of students, teachers, and other school personnel. But they also
expected that the government would use the postponement to strategize and
implement programs that would make it possible to resume classes without
triggering further COVID-19 outbreaks.

People expressed concern about the readiness of the Department of

Education and other schools in transitioning to a blended type of learning, which
would entail continuous training, procurement of new learning materials, and
installation of broadband connections. In response, DepEd assured the public that
the government was all set for the start of classes. It insisted that teachers have
been advised about innovative teaching strategies, internet access is being
improved, and modules are set for distribution. But on a personal note, the
responses made by the department were not observable. Many schools are still
struggling in terms of the availability of learning resources, poor internet connectivity,
and the unceasing poverty increase in the country.

Nevertheless, public continued to pinpoint glaring gaps in the DepEd’s plan

for the opening of face-to-face classes. For example, they aired concerns that
the digital divide will lead to further exclusion. Some people are not convinced that
the slow and unreliable internet access in the country can be fixed in time for the
start of the new school year.

Before COVID-19, many schools were barely coping with meager funding,
inadequate facilities, and high enrolment rates and the pandemic exacerbated these
problems. Another big obstacle is poor internet infrastructure in non-urban regions of
the country. If DepEd aims to rely on the internet for distance learning, this will
require extra spending not just on gadgets and workshops for teachers, but also
massive construction of communication towers to extend services to all those in
need.

COVID-19 did not create the school woes that are under discussion today, but
the virus has made it more urgent to resolve these problems before they further
undermine the education of Filipino children.

Page 1 of 2
 Meanwhile, many private schools have earlier started classes despite the fear
that many students from poor families will be left behind. Students whose parents
lost jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic were forced to drop out. Some groups
argued that it might be better to adopt an “academic freeze” instead of allowing
schools to operate while the pandemic is still raging. But this controversial proposal
was also rejected since it might do more harm to young people whose right to
education will be denied to them.

While many guidance documents for reopening schools exist, many state-
level documents do not explicitly call to reopen schools; rather they pose a series of
questions to consider in making decisions about reopening. This approach to
providing guidance allows for variation and flexibility. However, it also leaves with a
tremendous responsibility for making judgments about the risks of reopening while
also responding to the needs of students, families, and staff. Recently, President
Rodrigo R. Duterte refused on the proposal of the DepEd to open the limited face-to-
face classes claiming that it is he cannot sacrifice lives of school children.

Weighing all of the relevant factors to arrive at a decision about reopening and
staying open involves simultaneously considering the public health risks, the
educational risks, and other potential risks to the community. This kind of risk
assessment requires expertise in public health, infectious disease, and education as
well as clear articulation of the community’s values and priorities. It also requires a
protocol for monitoring data on the virus to track community spread. To ensure that
the process of reopening schools is reflective of the community’s needs and values
and attends effectively to the multiple and often conflicting priorities of the numerous
stakeholders and schools will need to take care to engage a range of perspectives in
the decision-making process.

Re-opening schools will be contingent on implementing a set of mitigation

strategies that limits transmission of the virus. Many of the mitigation strategies
currently under consideration require substantial reconfiguring of space, purchase of
additional equipment, adjustments to staffing patterns, and upgrades to school
buildings. The financial costs of consistently implementing a number of potential
mitigation strategies is considerable. While some highly resourced areas with well-
maintained school buildings may be able to implement most of the strategies, many
schools will need additional financial support to institute and maintain mitigation
measures. Costs are a particular concern due to the budget cuts resulting from the
economic impact of the pandemic.

Poor-quality school buildings complicate reopening and may make it difficult

for schools to implement the recommended health and safety measures. This poses
a problem for equitable implementation of the strategies as children and youth from
low-income families disproportionately attend schools with poor-quality facilities.

Finally, even if all of the mitigation strategies are in place and well
implemented, it is impossible to completely eliminate the risk of COVID-19 in
schools. Therefore, it is incumbent on officials, in association with public health
authorities, to plan for the possibility that one or more students, teachers or staff will
contract COVID-19. #

Page 2 of 2