VILORIA, LEMARK BERNAL

G202102163
PhD CIN Section 2

REFLECTION

In 2013, the Philippines implemented one of the major changes in the education system in history
of this country. The K-12 Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 necessitated the full review of curricular
standards and competencies by realigning the previous curriculum, as well as introduced the mandatory
Kindergarten program and the Senior High School curriculum. However, past 5 years of full
implementation, these changes have brought on new challenges and subsequent problems to the
education system of the country. Thus, there is a need to review the curriculum every so often.

“Instead of a national curriculum for education, what is really needed is an individual

curriculum for every child.” – Charles Handy

Handy, in this quote, emphasized that the ultimate goal of the curriculum is to deal with students
desired knowledge and skills. Lest we must not forget that it is the learner at the center of the curriculum.
Whatever form our curriculum is, it should be able to maximize the potential of our learner; its structure,
organization, and considerations are created to enhance student learning (Rhode Island Department of
Education). Thus, a review of the K-12 curriculum was necessitated to realize this goal.

The report informed the knowledge and understanding of the implementation of the K-12
curriculum in many ways. Firstly, the report was divided into 5 phases: initial review, review of the intended
curriculum, review of the implemented curriculum, review of the tested curriculum, and review of the
attained curriculum. The various phases of the curriculum review were important as it shows the
consistency of the learning competencies across all grade levels (vertical alignment) and all subject areas
(horizontal alignment). This consistency is important as it shows that the learning competencies are on the
same level. It is expected that these learning competencies would better inform the review, both on the
cognitive demands as well as how can these be implemented.

Second, the data shows that both teachers and learners perspectives on how the learning
competencies were taught are low. Teacher’s time available to teach clearly shows that the competencies
were not taught adequately and equally. This clearly shows that the teachers themselves must not have
adequate competence to teach the lessons or competencies on the given time frame. One of the reasons
given by the report was that there were too many learning competencies. As reported by the review on
intended curriculum, the K-12 curriculum was overloaded with substantial number of essential learning
competencies. However, these ELCs might have negative impact on the implementation of the intended
curriculum. Would overloading of contents and competencies affect the teaching? The report on review oin
implemented curriculum clearly shows it. On item indicating “Teacher Views of Items Affecting Curriculum
Implementation”, the participants clearly show that the number of learning competencies and contents of
curriculum were seen as negatively affecting implementation of the curriculum.

Third, the report clearly shows that the K-12 curriculum, in its current form, was inadequate
compared to international curriculum reviewed. As intended by the framers of the curriculum, it should
perform at par with global standards. Even though several Philippines curriculum at all grades cover topics
are similar to those of the comparison curricula, there are differences and deficiencies along the line,
especially on the higher grade level examined (Grade 10). The Philippine curriculum has put great
emphasis on higher levels of cognitive demands; however, the higher cognitive demands could be more
demanding on both teachers and learners. These higher demands could negatively affect if the teachers
are not adequately prepared to teach, and if the learners are not sufficiently taught the prerequisites of
these contents.

Fourth, the review on the tested curriculum shows that only 79% of the curriculum were exactly
matched with the Assessment that was done at the end of each key stage area; however. Would this mean
that the assessment was insufficient to the intended curriculum? If tested against the intended curriculum,
the report explicitly states that these numbers are sufficient for the alignment of the curriculum. However, if
we compare the results versus the review of the implemented curriculum, there would be a great
discrepancy as the implemented curriculum has inadequately touched the curriculum, most especially the
prerequisite knowledge and skills deemed important for the essential learning competencies. Therefore, the
implemented curriculum must be adjusted, as how the teachers are teaching and what supports does the
teachers need to better implement the curriculum demands. Other factors could come into play, such as the
learning materials, learning facilities, learning supports, class size and others should be given due notice
and be adjusted accordingly.
 Fifth, the review on the attained curriculum highlighted several key weaknesses and challenges
brought about by the K-12 curriculum. (a) It can be noted that the implementation of the curriculum was
emphasized to be a weakness with overloading of competencies to be learned, yet some are not justifiably
taught. The curriculum intended for deepening and mastery of the knowledge and skills through spiral
progression, but the report argues that these were not attained by the implementing basic education
schools. (b) Another underscored challenge was the alignment of the K-12 curriculum to the Higher
Education curriculum; it emphasized that ere are either a lot of overlapping contents or missing contents
between the two curricula. The misalignment results in either HEd schools provide a bridging programs or
introductory courses (which would result in additional units in higher education) or students continuing in
higher education without the needed knowledge and skills required. (c) The implemented K-12 curriculum
may not be contextually relevant to the students, as some may shift between tracks/strand to their
university courses or learning context may not be aligned with the current Higher Education curriculum. The
first may be triggered by prospective market demands of the time, while the second may be caused by
limited learning options in some schools offering SHS track/strands.

“Education is sometimes perceived as a sector which is resistant to change, while at

the same time it faces a crisis of productivity and efficiency.” – OECD, 2016

This curriculum review clearly shows that the K-12 curriculum is a work in progress. There are
many areas where weaknesses and challenges must be addressed quickly, as these would be hindrance to
the effective implementation of K-12 curriculum. The report clearly recommended that the curriculum
should be updated to thresh-out these weaknesses and challenges, such as reducing the learning
competencies, revising the alignment of competencies to clarify the sequencing, rewording of the words to
better express the intent of the curriculum, to ensure prerequisite skills and knowledge are taught
effectively, and many others. These recommendations are not only to highlight the intended curriculum but
to manage better expectations in the implemented curriculum. These are critical as teachers and school
administrators strictly adhere to what the curriculum states.

Another factor that can affect the quality of teaching is the teacher support. Clearly, there are many
problems that teachers face during the implementation of the current curriculum, especially during the shift
to distance learning because of the pandemic. Teachers should be able to benefit from professional
support, such as In Service Seminars and LAC sessions, that would focus on content and pedagogy as
well as classroom management. This support is critical because the quality of teaching may be improved by
introducing new skills and knowledge to the teachers (such as Content Knowledge [CK], Pedagogical
Knowledge [PK], Content Pedagogical Knowledge [CPK], and Technological Content Pedagogical
Knowledge [TPCK]). It is important that there would be available support for teachers in their schools as
well as on the district, division, regional, national, and if possible, on an international scale. Even if these
are not possible, professional development on a personal level such as enrolling in a master’s degree or
PhD would greatly improve the support teachers needed.

Various emerging trends and developments around the world would likely affect the curriculum like
industrial revolution 4.0, pandemic, global education. These trends and development would push for
innovation that we have not yet seen in the country. Currently, the biggest threat to education is the global
pandemic – the shift in a distance learning education mode was implemented in an emergency. These
trends would drive innovation in education as the student population would be driven by high levels of
digital literacy and skills. This uptake on digital literacy and skills would need transformation of educational
policies and practices, as well as modernizing the curriculum to ensure the strong and efficient system of
knowledge creation. There should be crucial improvements in the curriculum should be made in order to
satisfy the needs of the new generation of learners.

Higher education institutions and employers have felt that the initial shift of the curriculum may
finally answer (or help to answer) the skills and knowledge gap. However, evidence is now showing that,
instead of closing the gap, there seems to be a widening. This should be a shocker, as the intention of the
curriculum was not being addressed at the implementation phase. I am not solely putting the blame at the
implementation of the teachers, as evidence show that the intended curriculum itself has its own weakness.
This curriculum review highlights the various factors that needed to be changed as we have fallen behind
the attainment of the educational goals of our country.

The much-needed shift in the curriculum would be underpinned by various philosophical,

sociological, and psychological factors within the society. The curriculum would likely to shift to “whole
child” approach, wherein the holistic development of the child, including the emotional and social aspects,
would be emphasized in the development of the curriculum. This is already seen in the strengthening of the
21st century skills and contextualization of the contents of the learning areas.
 One result of the curriculum review was the introduction of the MELCs (Most Essential Learning
Competencies). While I admire the implementation of these MELCs, it should be clear that to all concerned
what it’s the intention of this. Is this a temporary adjustment to the curriculum because of the pandemic? Or
would this be the first step to curriculum change? The implementation of the distance learning approach
should also be cleared – an emergency learning approach or a first step of curriculum change? With almost
two years has passed and one school year has ended, DepEd should be clear in its stand as to how the
curriculum would be affected permanently. We cannot stand still and wait patiently with how the
Department would respond to the rapid changing situation in the country’s pandemic response. We can
improve our sector by, firstly, admitting and clearing up some confusions on the questions I have proposed
above. Secondly, an appropriate and clear plan on how to address the much-needed curriculum update
must be presented to all stakeholders.

While the quote above underscores the view of many tenured members of the academe, I believe
that the education sector must change. We must first accept the fact the education in the Philippines faces
an uphill battle between those who resist and those who want to innovate. Teachers, who are at the
forefront of the sector, must accept that there will always be change with how we teach, how we perceive
education, and how the learners have changed. We must adapt to the current situation and learn as much
as we could to lead the change.