status and prospects of science and mathematics education in the philippines
TRANSCRIPT
STATUS AND PROSPECTS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS
EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES
PETER PHILIP M. PEREZMAED - Major in Administration and Supervision
Divine Word College of San Jose
Science and mathematics, being the subjects usually
correlated with the word “difficult” are said to be one of the
most important subject there is due to its pragmatic importance
in society. This, statement is true whether we take it in the
local context and that also of the international; for instance,
Antonio Isidro y Santos, 1968 who authored several books about
the Philippine educational system and education per se states
that “The importance of Science to individuals and nations cannot
be overemphasized”, this statement can be attributed to the fact
that the said subjects importance is in its superlative degree,
thus; cannot be astounded by any other. Note that, this
statement of Santos regarding the importance of science has been
made in the year 1968, thus; even though archival and can be
considered out of date by some who are very particular in the
literatures date of publication; the same truth holds bearing up
to this present days, which can be gauged from the literature of
Sarah A. Roberts, 2009 quoting Moses and Cobb, 2001 which states
that: Today… the most urgent issue affecting poor people and
people of color is economic access. In today’s world, economic
access and full citizenship depend crucially on science and math
literacy” (p.5). And, even furthers by saying that: In an
increasingly technological economy, in order to participate,
individuals have to be mathematically literate, which means they
must have opportunities to learn mathematics. Note that, Sarah
Roberts is referring to the worldwide or holistic view of the
importance of science and mathematics education; and, if it is
true internationally, it also has a bearing in the local setting.
The general statement of about the state of education in the
present context can be gauged from the words of the present
secretary of the Department of Education itself who states that
“I do not think it will be a mistake or will be fairly easy to
claim that the Philippine education is in crisis” (Nilo A.
Colinares, 2000); here, confession from the incumbent high
ranking official himself, made mention about the difficulties and
dilemmas that the Philippine Education sector is having. Thus, it
is but safe to claim that science and mathematics education
follows the same scenario, since the said subjects are just mere
components of the Philippine education curriculum, and the
Philippine curriculum is also a component of a macro system of
the Philippine education scenario. Indeed, being pessimistic
sometimes is but a logical, and; it includes situations such as
describing the science and mathematics education in the country.
Actually, these somewhat systemic and pressing issues as regards
to the flop of Philippine Educational System can be explained by
one literature alone which I quote:
The persistence of these issues for much of the 20th century
and into the first decade of the 21st century highlights a
distressing paradox. With its long tradition of critical
assessments and reform-oriented planning, the DepEd actually
incubated, tested, and proved the effectiveness of numerous
reform initiatives, some of them ahead of the discourses of
their time. Yet, at the start of every school year, the news
media project without fail a perpetual education crisis that
the mainstreaming of successful reform initiatives could
have addressed.
Why reforms have not transformed education on the
ground or why the DepEd has found it difficult to translate
structural reforms and programmatic changes into large-
scale, integrated, and sustained outcomes is the focus of
this chapter. It shares insights into the education reform
process through the prism of two illustrative cases: One
shows the DepEd’s partial implementation of the
decentralized governance of basic education; the other
demonstrates its inadequate policy formulation in the area
of learning and pedagogy.
The first case looks into the partial implementation of
RA9155 through school based management (SBM) in 21 percent
of the country’s schools divisions through the BEAM project
funded by the Australian Agency for International Aid
(AusAID) and the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP)
supported by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation
(JBIC) and the World Bank (WB). The case demonstrates how
the following—a policy change (i.e., the decentralization of
education and the corresponding revision of functions and
responsibilities at various levels of the bureaucracy);
policy continuity across different administrations;
effective leadership at all levels; the willful
implementation of plans that targeted disadvantaged schools;
and the encouragement of innovations throughout schools in
the divisions covered—allowed a reform-oriented
counterculture to begin taking root in the DepEd without a
change in division and school personnel. In addition, this
case reflects changes in processes and procedures at the
central and local offices for the duration of the projects.
The second case relates the story of the country’s
language policy and why, despite a surfeit of international
and national research supporting the use of the mother
tongue in the early years of schooling, the DepEd has not
revised its policy on the languages of learning and language
acquisition. The story demonstrates the struggle within the
DepEd and between the department and powerful segments in
Philippine society of contending positions on a pedagogy-
related policy with tremendous implications for learning,
the preservation of local languages, and the survival of
community cultures.
Strengthening the capacity of the DepEd bureaucracy to
manage education reform by addressing formal and informal
institutional constraints is the objective of the Basic
Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). While BESRA maps the
way forward, its implementation is vulnerable to the same
factors that have limited the impact of previous reform
efforts. This chapter concludes with BESRA’s potential for
catalyzing institutional change and outlines recommendations
to help the DepEd succeed in translating another responsive,
well-crafted, and comprehensive plan into reality.
While this chapter examines institutional factors that
have constrained the transformative effects of education
reform, it recognizes that some reforms would not
necessarily translate into desired outcomes when the
intervening variables are not within the control of the
DepEd. For instance, studies by the World Bank and the
National Nutrition Council have shown that no amount of
academic improvement projects will improve learning
achievement when brain development and physical growth are
stunted by the child’s unfavorable health and nutrition
status (Ma. Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Allan B.I. Bernardo,
Dina Ocampo, 2008).
Thus, it can be gauged from the foregoing that, we are going into
circles, practically solving nothing, and the deemed solution
seemed to become more of a problem rather than a solution, since;
it entails expenditure which will be charged against the taxes
paid by the people of the republic of the Philippines.
Science and Mathematics Education in the country, is not at
par with the description of the state of education of the nation
in general, there are reforms, moves and agenda which somewhat
proves little pragmatically good result in the long run of every
moves the higher ranking officials has pushed. However, it must
be made clear that to decipher the rationale behind such; one
must dig deeper into the context of the history of the Philippine
education sector, along with the issues of leadership in the
higher offices of Philippine education agencies as well as other
less pertinent respects.
To be particular, the perceived flaws of Mathematics and
science education in the country can be attributed to numerous
factors such as: Teacher’s factors, language issue in
instruction, administrative issues, and financial issues among
others.
Teacher’s factors which have a connection to the state of
science and mathematics education in the country can be further
deciphered into several contexts such as: teacher preparation
issues, teaching effectiveness issues. As regards to the teacher
preparation issues, and teaching effectiveness issues on
Philippine science and mathematics education, an archival
literature written by Antonio Isidro y Santos, 1968 on Page 121
stipulated: The present knowledge and techniques of the present
science and mathematics teachers must be upgraded. There should
be a constant effort to upgrade the professional preparation of
science and math teachers. Here, as early as the year 1968,
mention has been made as regards to the low quality of teacher
preparation; thus, needing to be improved, to effect quality
learning among the students being catered in the schools. Gauging
from this, we can say that, from late 1960’s there has been
problems in existence regarding teacher preparation; these same
scenario can be seen even up to this present times as manifested
in the present literatures such as that of Sylvia A. Ware, 1992
who said that “the content of many science teacher preparation
programs needs to be reevaluated to eliminate intellectually
superficial courses from the curriculum”, thus recommends that
“Teacher training institutions need to begin to take teacher
preparation seriously enough to put more thought and imagination
into program design and flexible course scheduling” . We can see
from the arguments of Sylvia A. Ware that a good teacher
preparation is important, things which even the present secretary
of education seems to be not taking into consideration; for
instance, the news article of Queena N. Lee-Chua, 2012 quoting
Bro Armin Luistro and DepEd Agenda states that:
Luistro says DepEd is looking into the possibility of asking
specialists to handle content-heavy subjects, particularly
in the junior and senior high schools, even if they have not
taken the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).
“They have to be properly qualified, of course,”
Luistro says. “A BS Math graduate can be asked to teach
high school math, even without doing the LET, but only on a
part-time basis.”
“We cannot hire them full-time, because the law
requires elementary and high school teachers to have a
license,” he says.
I have previously written about cases of accountants,
engineers, and other professionals who want to and who can
teach math and science, but were turned down because they
did not take the LET.
To critics who say these are not “real teachers,”
Luistro says part-timers will be given seminars to learn the
appropriate pedagogy and instructional methods.
Things such as this can irritate those who have knowledge in
pedagogy and learning, as well as those who really pursued
education as a course knowing that what should have been their
benefits for taking the course and being eligible thereof will be
shared to those who are in one way or another, are not eligible
to teach. Furthermore, knowing that learning (effective and
efficient) may come as a result of good pedagogical style, we can
say that the future of the students which will be handled by such
non teachers has stronger chance to be in peril. What irritates
me more is that fact that this issue is already archival in
nature; Antonio Isidro y Santos, 1968 has already mentioned such
scenario on teachers and teaching competence sixty years ago when
said that teaching is a matter of luck than an indication of
professional competence or adequate preparation for teaching”;
pity, but that is how things goes.
Language issue are also said to be imbedded in the perceived
failure of the science and mathematics education in the country
and the teaching and learning scenario in general. In the words
of Marina E. Balce, 2010 of the National Institute for Science
and Mathematics Education Development of the University of the
Philippines: One aspect of effective teaching that makes a
significant difference to learning is the use of the mother
tongue to communicate the nuances of any idea. This statement has
come about due to the perceived failure of students to grasp the
concepts of science and mathematics as it is taught in the second
language or English. Note that, Understanding the relationship
between language and mathematics learning is crucial to designing
mathematics instruction for students (Judit Moschkovich, 1995),
this is also true concerning science education as to the words of
authors such as Mohamad Fadhili Bin Yahaya, Mohd Asri Bin Mohd
Noor, Ahmad Azman Bin Mokhtar, Rafizah Binti Mohd Rawian, Mahmod
Bin Othman, Kamaruzaman Jusoff, 2009. In some cases, there is a
need to become bilingual to be able to impart the concepts of
science and mathematics effectively s (for examples see Adler,
1998; Brenner, 1994; Khisty, McLeod, & Bertilson, 1990; Khisty,
1995; and Moschkovich, 1999). Gauging from the foregoing we can
say that there is really a need to consider the implementation of
vernacular instruction in the country for reason of better
facilitation of knowledge in the said fields; also, as history
itself states, there is a perceive language handicap on the part
of Filipinos’ when taken English language into consideration,
since it is just a second language in the country (Paul Monroe,
1925), and even nowadays, in which more than 40 percent of the
Filipino citizens find it difficult to convey their thoughts in
the English language. Actually, this should not be the case; we
have our own language which should not be extinct in favor of
English (Nettle, D. 2000)
Administrative issues which leads to the downfall of the
Philippine Science and Mathematics Education in the country is
intertwined with many concerns or multifaceted. Way back in
1960’s there is an administrative decision which fosters the
decline of Filipino interest in mathematics science; that is
giving higher salaries to English teachers more than that of
other subjects as stated in the book of Bienvenido B Manuel,
Juanita S. Guerrero, Minda C. Sutaria (1974). This, along with
other administrative decision may in one way another triggered
the fission of reactions leading to the uncontrollable failure as
we see it now. Furthermore, funding can also be associated with
administration (2013 Budget Message of President Aquino, 2013);
thus, they are the ones who should be blamed for lack/s of needed
supplies in the Philippine education setting (Philippine
Education For All 2015; ) and although it is given that dis
is due to underdevelopment of economy (Masafumi Nagao, John M.
Rogan, Marcelita Coronel Magno, 2007) it is also given, gauging
from the supreme law of the land itself that education, more
particularly science and mathematics should be the priority of
the state, gauging from the context of the law itself which
quote:
The State shall protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take
appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
The State shall: (1) Establish, maintain, and support a
complete, adequate, and integrated system of education
relevant to the needs of the people and society;
The State shall take into account regional and
sectorial needs and conditions and shall encourage local
planning in the development of educational policies and
programs.
The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority
to education and ensure that teaching will attract and
retain its rightful share of the best available talents
through adequate remuneration and other means of job
satisfaction and fulfillment (Article XIV, Education,
Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports Education.
Ricardo S. Lazo, 2009).
All the said factors, when taken into consideration, will
inevitably fall into a single conclusion, that the future of the
students in this country will not be in good shape because of the
inequities of our so called leaders to transform the education
sector of the country into a competitive one; this has been
mentioned around sixty (60) years ago by Antonio Isidro y Santos,
1968 which goes: Under present offerings of science and
mathematics in the elementary and secondary schools, our youth
will be handicapped in competition with future leaders in other
lands. A conclusion such as this has come to existence because of
the standing culture of failure we have in the Philippine
educational system. I just wish that this will be reversed sooner
so that we can be competitive enough and will be able to keep up
with the changes in the present times. Failure in this respect
can be interpreted as “mis-education of the Filipino”
(Constantino, 1959), this is not just phenomenal but systemic
(Funtecha, H. & Padilla, M. (2004).
Literature in philbasiceducation.blogspot.com entitled
“Science and Mathematics Education: What Is the Current
Situation?” provides that: In order to solve a problem, the first
step is to understand it. Knowing the situation is a key to
providing the appropriate solution. Again, this parallels good
practice in medicine. A correct diagnosis is necessary to make
the right prescription. It is important to have the data that
inform and in both science and math education, without paying
attention to evidence leads to solutions that are based on wild
guesses, preconceived notions, and anecdotes. Note that,
recommendation like this directly hits the scenario which is
happening concerning the education sector in the land, thus; we
need to adhere to this so that we can have a better shape of
education for the sake of the students being catered in schools.
The aforementioned conclusion is very serious; thus, needs to be
resolved, using very wise decisions, diligently composed and
implemented (Bernardo, A. B. I. 2008) and, these reforms should
be done the soonest possible time in the country, before it’s too
late (Capuno, 2008); these statements are also attuned to the
words of Maria Linda C. Cabillan, who mentioned that we have to
move in faster phase as regards to this due to the advent of
globalization.
REFERENCES:
I. BOOKS:
1. Nilo a. Colinares, 2000. 21st Century Trends, issues and
Challenges in Philippine Education. National Book Store,
Mandaluyong City, Page 118.
2. Antonio Isidro y Santos, 1968. Trends and Issues in
Philippine Education. Alemar-Phoenix Publications. Pages
119.
3. Bienvenido B Manuel, Juanita S. Guerrero, Minda C. Sutaria
(1974). New thrusts in Philippine education. Current Events
Digest.
4. Paul Monroe, 1925. A survey of the educational system of the
Philippine Islands by the Board of educational surveys:
created under acts 3162 and 3196 of the Philippine
legislature. Philippines. Educational Survey Commission
Bureau of Printing
5. Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. (2000) Vanishing Voices: The
Extinction of the World’s Languages. London, UK; Oxford
University Press
6. Funtecha, H. & Padilla, M. (2004). Study Guide in Philippine
History for Teachers and Students. Iloilo City: Mindset
Publishing.
7. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). English in Philippine education:
Solution or problem? Hong Kong University Press.
8. Masafumi Nagao, John M. Rogan, Marcelita Coronel Magno,
2007. Mathematics and Science Education in Developing
Countries: Issues, Experiences, and Cooperation Prospects.
University of the Philippines Press.
9. Ricardo S. Lazo, 2009. Philippine Governance and the 1987
Constitution. Rex Book Store Incorporated.
II. JOURNALS:
10. Sarah A. Roberts, 2009. Supporting English Language
Learners’ Development of Mathematical Literacy. Democracy &
Education 18 no. 3 Aug. 2009
Ma. Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Allan B.I. Bernardo, Dina
Ocampo, 2008. When Reforms Don’t Transform: Reflections on
institutional reforms in the Department of Education.
http://hdn.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dp02_bautista_e
tal.pdf
11. Sylvia A. Ware, 1992. The Education of Secondary
Science Teachers in Developing Countries. PHREE Background
Paper Series, Published thru the aid of: The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development The World Bank 1992
12. Adler, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas:
Unlocking the complex multilingual secondary mathematics
classroom. FLM Publishing Association. pages 24-33.
13. Brenner, M. (1994). A communication framework for
mathematics: Exemplary instruction for culturally and
linguistically diverse students. SUNY Press.
14. Khisty, L. L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of
language and meanings in mathematics teaching with Hispanic
students. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian
(Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education
(pp. 279-297). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Supporting the participation
of English language learners in mathematical discussions.
FLM Publishing Association.
16. Constantino, Renato (1959). The Miseducation of the
Filipino, Weekly Graphics.
17. Capuno, Joseph (2008). A Case Study of the
Decentralization of Health and Education Services in the
Philippines. Background paper for the 2008 Philippine Human
Development Report.
III. ONLINE SOURCES:
18. Queena N. Lee-Chua, 2012. Preparing teachers for the
big reform. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved April 4,
2014.http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/170691/preparing-teachers-
for-the-big-reform
19. Science and Mathematics Education: What Is the Current
Situation? Retrieved April 4, 2014.
http://philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2013/03/science-and-
mathematics-education-what.html
20. Khisty, L. L., McLeod, D., & Bertilson, K. (1990).
Speaking mathematically in bilingual classrooms: An
exploratory study of teacher discourse. Proceedings of the
Fourteenth International Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics Educator, 3, 105-112. Mexico City: CONACYT.
Retrieved April 4, 2014. http://uri-
englishlanguagearts.wikispaces.com/file/view/Supporting
%20ELLs%20Math.pdf/222842538/Supporting%20ELLs%20Math.pdf
21. Mohamad Fadhili Bin Yahaya et.al. 2009. Teaching of
Mathematics and Science in English: The Teachers' Voices.
English Language Teaching. Retrieved April 4, 2014.
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/23
80
22. Marina E. Balce, 2010. Teaching Quality Science
Education in Filipino. Retrieved April 4, 2014.
http://mlephil.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/teaching-quality-
science-education-in-filipino/
23. Maria Linda C. Cabillan. Changing Landscape of
Mathematics Education in the Philippines: Lessons from
Globalization. Retrieved April 4, 2014. http://vlir-
piuc.slu.edu.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=76
24. 2013 Budget Message of President Aquino, 2013.
Retrieved April 4, 2014. http://www.gov.ph/2012/07/24/2013-
budget-message-of-president-aquino/
25. Philippine Education For All 2015: Implementation and
Challenges. Retrieved April 4,
2014
.http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Philippines/Philip
pines_EFA_MDA.pdf