philippine k -12 system in the postmodern education · pdf filebaybayin vol. i, no. 1 (august...

BAYBAYIN vol. I, no. 1 (August 2015) http://www.baybayin.com.ph

ISSN 1908-4697

48

P H I L I P P I N E K - 1 2 S Y S T E M I N T H E P O S T M O D E R N E D U C A T I O N A L L A N D S C A P E

Alfred James Ellar

ABSTRACT: In the Philippine educational landscape, the K-12 education has been looked upon as the better way to optimize the efficiency and competency of Filipino graduates. At its core is the aim for holistic development of the person in all areas of life endeavors to become locally and globally competitive. In this paper, I intend (a) to argue that the nature of K-12 system, at least in the Philippine setting, is equipped with components that either meet, or resist, or sustain, or overcome the challenges of postmodern conditions; and (b) to argue that through philosophy, K-12 system can harmonize and neutralize the contradicting implications intrinsic in postmodern perspectives of education. Yet, through critical discourse analysis, however, I demonstrate that K-12 educational system has inherent inconsistency between its content-operations and its intended goal. This inconsistency lies: first, in the nature of its system which has been encrypted with postmodern educational themes rooted in some postmodern perspectives such as nihilism, variation, and differentiation; and second, in the motivation of this system which is based on relations of power, dominance of demands, commodification of competencies, and resistance to inequality. Consequently, I demonstrate the crucial role of philosophy as an approach: (a) to respond on the postmodern challenges to K-12 system at least in the context of Philippine educational landscape; as well as (b) to address postmodern education as constructivism in resolving the problem of vacuum learning. Lastly, I propose some philosophy-oriented approaches in revitalizing Philippine K-12 educational system under the postmodern line of thoughts.

KEYWORDS:

K-12 Education, Critical Discourse Analysis, Postmodernism, Postmodern Education, Philosophy. Self-Inconsistency

INTRODUCTION: K-12 EDUCATION AND THE POSTMODERN PROBLEM

n the Philippine educational landscape, the K-12 education has been looked upon as the better way to optimize the efficiency and

competency of Filipino graduates. At its core is the aim for holistic I

http://www.baybayin.com.ph/


ISSN 1908-4697

49

development of the person in all areas of life endeavors – personal, social, economic, political, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual, to become locally and globally competitive. Accordingly, the context, setting, and problem of this paper are demonstrated into two phases.

On one hand, K-12 educational system is currently the ‘dominating’ educational system of ‘world’ in the era of postmodernity. Since, this educational system exhibits the following: (a) it is an on-going system in the postmodern era; (b) it manifests postmodern educational themes in its content and in the operation of its system; and (c) it represents the vital characteristics of postmodernism. This term ‘world’ as such pertains to sociocultural condition either: (1) as an after-effect of ‘postmodern turn’ from the rigidly systematic rational framework of modernism and Enlightenment, or (2) as a constitutive part of the ‘postmodern turn’ itself in the area/field of education. Whereas if it is (1), then, K-12 is a “constructive postmodern turn” – in terms of a ‘rehabilitative continuation’ of modernism in a such different mode (Lyotard). And, whereas if it (2), then, K-12 is a “constructive postmodern turn” – in terms of a ‘reconstructive contextualization’ of modernism in terms of being a “late capitalism” (Jameson). So, in the case of Philippine K-12 education system [PKES], I contextualize [PKES] in (1) in terms of global setting; while I contextualize [PKES] in (2) in terms of local setting. Given such contextualization, then, how are we now going to respond on this [PKES] contexts and settings while taking into consideration the postmodern challenges intrinsic in nature of [PKES]?

On the other hand, it has been agreed upon by most of the current philosophers and philosophy scholars that philosophy is not really a discipline but an approach to reality. Consequently, postmodernism is better understood not as a discipline of philosophizing, but rather an approach to traditional ideas in non-traditional ways – that is, a deviated derivative ways from pre-established super structural mode of thinking. It means that it is not a philosophical system, but rather a cultural movement or a theory of philosophy – that is, a theory of philosophical/cultural thinking. As such, postmodernism is not anymore a “content” of education (that is, as a discipline in education); but rather a “process” of education (that is, a manner of education). In the postmodern approach (or process) of systematic operation for [PKES], then it seems that it uses itself (that is, its specification, differentiation, operation and systematization) against its own goals (that is, globalization, collaboration, critical and creativeness). In other words, it



ISSN 1908-4697

50

is like the notion of “While if-A” – (that is, its unity, centrality, as itself) against its intrinsic “So then-A” – (that is, its goal, aim, and purpose). In notation, this means that “If A, then ~A” as its systemic process goes on – a kind of autonomic de-constructive mechanism (or system) – more likely an inconsistency among its content, process and result. Then, why do we now take philosophy through postmodernism as vital approach to enhance [PKES] in achieving its goal, while taking into consideration its nihilistic postmodern implications?

Amidst this seemingly inconsistency of [PKES] in connection

with postmodern challenges, as such, this paper intends to argue the vital role of philosophy in addressing the issues concerning the [PKES] through the following: (1) to argue that the nature of [PKES], at least in the Philippine setting, is equipped with components that either meet, or resist, or sustain, or overcome the challenges of postmodern conditions; and to argue that through philosophy, [PKES] can harmonize and neutralize the intrinsic contradicting implications in the context of postmodern era.

Moreover, since philosophy is better understood in the current intellectual landscape of the world as a kind of “approach”, and since this paper revolves around the milieu of postmodernism and education, I have used the methodological approach called “critical discourse analysis”:

On one hand, generally, a Discourse Analysis is an approach rooted, and consequently, understood in the context of poststructuralism and social constructivism developed within the postmodern line of thought (Zeeman et al. 2002). Accordingly, Discourse Analysis is: (a) neither description nor explanation of the world; (b) nor make any claim on the truth; but rather, (c) it is a reflexive and productive process that is directed at change and progress. On the other hand, specifically, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as a discourse analysis, is “a type of analytical research that primarily studies the ways social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (Van Dijk 2001, 352).

Consequently, CDA: (1) aims to offer a different “mode” or “perspective” of theorizing, analysis, and interpretation of a given social and political phenomenon, apart from the ways of those institutionalized theories and paradigms conceive or describe this phenomenon; (2) focuses in social problems and political issues through the analysis of their properties particularly social pattern, interaction and structure to



ISSN 1908-4697

51

produce power relation and social resistance; and, (3) seeks to understand reflexively, and consequently takes an explicit position, by way of a new mode of interpretation on how ‘objects’ or ‘phenomena’ are constructed by social groups by means of power and dominance, in relation to socially accepted and shared understanding of these ‘objects’ or ‘phenomena.’

As such, using CDA, I structure and defend my main argument as follows:

[P1]: That, in the core of Philippine educational landscape, the

[PKES] has been looked upon as the better way to optimize the efficiency and competency of Filipino graduates – that is, a holistic development of the person in all areas of life endeavors to become locally and globally competitive according to global demands and international standards;

[P2]: Since, [PKES] is highly encrypted with postmodern

ingredients and procedures; it also imbibes in its system operations some of the postmodern perspectives such as nihilism, variation, and differentiation;

[P3]: Also, the motivation of this system is based on relations of

power, dominance of demands, commodification of competencies, and resistance to inequality;

[P4]: So from [P1], it seems that [PKES] is inconsistent to itself,

containing a vacuum learning – that is, it affirms what it has abandoned/rejected and it abandons/rejects what it has affirmed, as derived from [P2] and [P3]; and which,

[P5]: However, philosophy as an approach would then play a

vital role in demonstrating [PKES] to remain consistent insofar as postmodern education is viewed as constructivism; and even while postmodernism still takes its effects on this system of educational paradigm.

For the purpose of logical presentation of this paper, aside from

introduction and conclusion, I divided my discussion into four sections. In section one, I discussed an overview of [PKES] in the context of Philippine educational landscape – in support of [P1]. In section two, I



ISSN 1908-4697

52

presented [PKES] as a constructivist educational approach exhibiting postmodern themes in its content-operational components – in support of [P2] and [P3]. In section three, I demonstrated some consideration on postmodern challenges to [PKES], using CDA – in support of [P4]. And, in section four, I tendered my proposal and responses to the above considerations and challenges through arguing the vital role of philosophy as ‘constructive approach’ in the context of postmodern education – in support of [P5]. THE PHILIPPINE K-12 EDUCATION SYSTEM: AN OVERVIEW1 The following are the supporting information for [P1]; as such given:

[P1]: That, in the core of Philippine educational landscape, the [PKES] has been looked upon as the better way to optimize the efficiency and competency of Filipino graduates – that is, a holistic development of the person in all areas of life endeavors to become locally and globally competitive according to global demands and international standards;

The promulgation of the [PKES] has been precluded by the Philippine government’s intention to enhance the efficiency of the graduates based on the Philippine educational vision, thus, in the words of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, Pres. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III2:

“Education is the key to the long-term problems of the country. If we fix basic education, we fix the long-term problems of the country. And if we fix the country’s problems, we will build a truly strong society. . .” “We need to add two years to our basic education. Those who can afford pay up to fourteen years of schooling before university. Thus, their children are getting into the best universities and the

1 My heartfelt thanks to my graduate students in Philosophy of Education at LPU-B, particularly to Mr. Albert Arcega and Ms. Julie Ann Dimaculangan, both from the faculty of Arts and

Sciences at BatStateU, for a wonderful discursive conversation about K-12 Education, and for lending

some of their materials and write-ups about K-12. 2 http://www.gov.ph/2012/04/24/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-launch-of-the-k-to-12-

basic-education-program-april-24-2012-english-translation/


http://www.gov.ph/2012/04/24/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-launch-of-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program-april-24-2012-english-translation/



ISSN 1908-4697

53

best jobs after graduation. I want at least 12 years for our public school children to give them an even chance at succeeding.”

The enhanced [PKES], or the Department of Education’s (DepEd) proposal to overhaul the basic and secondary education curriculum by adding two more years to the system is arguably one of the most radical – “a grass-root move” of the Aquino Administration. The program is proposed to start in school year 2012-2013 for grade 1 and first year high school students with the target of full implementation by SY 2018-2019. As the [PKES] policy proposed, there are lots of oppositions and critiques have been presented. Nonetheless, justifications were offered by the proponents of the bill, such as:

1) The Philippines is the only remaining country in Asia with a

10-year pre-university program. 2) The majority who do not go to college are too young to

enter the labor force. Thus, they would either be unemployed or be vulnerable to exploitative labor practices.

3) Those who may be interested to set up businesses cannot legally enter into contracts.

4) The few, (only 23%) who would proceed to tertiary education, usually have to undergo remedial and high school level classes in colleges and universities.

5) Those who graduate (17%) may not be recognized as professionals abroad.

In the current assessment of the Philippine educational system,

the poor quality of basic education is reflected in the inadequate preparation of high school graduates for global competency in terms of vocational skills, corporate work or entrepreneurship, or for higher and advanced education. High school graduates likewise do not possess the basic skills or emotional maturity essential for livelihood and professional job demands3.

While the availability of economic opportunities contributes to essential aspects of education, it likewise illustrates the mismatch

3 DepEd Discussion Paper: “The Enhanced K-12 Basic Education Program”, 05 October 2012



ISSN 1908-4697

54

between labor markets and educational trainings. The World Bank Philippines Skills Report in 2009 reveals, based on a survey of employers, serious gaps in critical skills of graduates such as problem solving, initiative and creativity; as well as to lesser extent, gaps in job specific technical skills thus the [PKES] policy was enacted. As such, the DepEd argues that the [PKES] programs will be the solution to yearly basic education woes and the deteriorating quality of education. Critics, however, counteract that the education crisis needs to be addressed more fundamentally and whether increasing the number of years of schooling as proposed by the [PKES] could lead to improvements in quality or just exacerbate the present situation.

Accordingly the RA 10533, moreover, which is also known as the “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013” is an act enhancing the Philippine basic education system by strengthening its curriculum and increasing the number of years for basic education, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes. To resolve the educational dilemma of the current educational curricula, the RA 10533 aims to create “a functional basic education system” that will develop productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential competencies, skills and values for both life-long learning and employment specifically stipulated as follows, and as here notated as [FE]:

a) [FE1]: Give every student an opportunity to receive quality education that is globally competitive based on a pedagogically sound curriculum that is at par with international standards;

b) [FE2]: Broaden the goals of high school education for college

preparation, vocational and technical career opportunities as well as creative arts, sports, and entrepreneurial employment in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; and

c) [FE3]: Make education learner-oriented and responsive to the

needs, cognitive and cultural capacity, the circumstances and diversity of learners, schools and communities through the appropriate languages of teaching and learning, including mother language tongue as a learning resource.

And its salient features are stated as follows, thus [SF]:



ISSN 1908-4697

55

a) Strengthening early education (Universal Kindergarten)

b) Making the curriculum relevant to learners (Contextualization and Enhancement)

c) Ensuring integrated and seamless learning (Spiral Progression)

d) Building proficiently through language (Mother tongue-based Multilingual Education)

e) Gearing up for the future (Senior High School) f) Nurturing the holistically developed Filipino (College

and Livelihood Readiness, 21st Century Skills)

Furthermore, in its core philosophical foundation, the [PKES] program’s central goal, in accordance with DepEd resolution, is “Functional Literacy for all Filipinos”. The curricula are designed to develop learners through solid moral and spiritual grounds to develop skills for lifelong learning, for critical thinking as well as for creative problem solving in order to become globally competitive, progressive, just and humane individuals.

K-12 EDUCATION AS CONSTRUCTIVIST EDUCATIONAL APPROACH: A POSTMODERN EDUCATIONAL THEME This section is in support of [P2] and [P3] of my main argument, hence:

[P2]: Since, [PKES] is highly encrypted with postmodern ingredients and procedures; it also imbibes in its system operations some of the postmodern perspectives such as nihilism, variation, and differentiation;

[P3]: Also, the motivation of this system is based on relations of power,

dominance of demands, commodification of competencies, and resistance to inequality;

On the one hand, with this goal and curricula descriptions

above, it seems that the [PKES] is founded on the constructivist foundation, along with the concepts of the progressivism and reconstructionism as related philosophical framework of educational system. Nevertheless, however, I would opt to focus specifically on constructivist foundation of [PKES], since this particular educational



ISSN 1908-4697

56

foundation is generally developed along the radius of postmodern thoughts and themes of education4.

Hence, the following are some of the primordial rationale on

DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012 curriculum foundation which are definitive descriptions of a constructivist educational philosophy, and as here notated as [CF]:

[CF1]: Definition: the generic of constructivist approach to education is Social Constructionism [or Constructivism] which has the following characteristics (Zeeman et al. 2002, 98-99):

a) It studies how people interact with one another to construct, modify and maintain what their society holds to be true, real, and meaningful;

b) It maintains that meanings are produced by a process of reflexivity;

c) It is concerned with broader patterns of social meaning encoded in language; and

d) It shows how understanding and experiences are derived from larger discourses.

[CF2]: The overall design of Grade 1 to 12 curricula follows the spiral approach across core and peripheral subjects: In [PKES], subjects are taught in spiral progression5 to enhance integrated and maximum learning. In this spiral progression, learners continuously reflect on their experiences while developing the needed abilities and skills to achieve this kind learning. Accordingly, constructivism encourages different activities where students can reflect, discuss with their teacher or with their peers their outcomes, and understand it, as they learn from and about it. It is about learning which depends on the basic skills and accomplishing or acting on more complicated skills in the future. Spiral progression is a formative concept of constructivism.

4 Postmodern education is based on the assumption that what people think to be knowledge really consists of mere “constructs” (ways of looking at the world), not “truth.” Postmodern education is

accurately defined in the following statement: A key word to learn when trying to understand postmodern

education is constructivism. Constructivism is the main underlying learning theory in postmodern education. The basic idea is that all knowledge is invented or "constructed" in the minds of people.

Knowledge is not discovered as modernists would claim. In other words, the ideas teachers teach and

students learn do not correspond to "reality," they are merely human constructions. Knowledge, ideas and language are created by people, not because they are "true," but rather because they are useful (indicate

the site). 5 See also Baudrillard’s concept of “spiral progression”n in Symbolic Exchange and Death

(1993).



ISSN 1908-4697

57

[CF3]: The content standards define what students are expected to know (knowledge: facts and information), what they should be able to do (process or skills) with what they know, and the meanings or understandings that they construct or make as they process the facts and information: Constructivist methodology provides enough time6 for the child to have an in-depth investigation of his/her new learning to boost the curiosity and make ways to better understand things he/she does not know. The teaching-learning time can be extended to include off-school learning activities and experiences which eventually are being reflected in the transfer of learning tasks into products and performances that constitute the constructed knowledge and skills out of these activities and experiences. [CF4]: Teachers should differentiate how students will manifest their understanding, while the students, on the other hand, can have the option to express their understanding in their own way: In the constructivist philosophy, assessment7 is part of the learning process of the student such as assessment which is linked to some pertinent documents such as tests, anecdotal reports or written observations to the curriculum itself and to the child’s level of understanding. Assessment in the constructivist framework is student-centered: that is, the teacher facilitates the mode and manner of learning tasks; while allowing and encouraging the students to freely express their understanding in their own personal and creative way – and from which they construct knowledge by way of engagement and expression.

On the other hand, in the ground of this “Functional Literacy

for all Filipinos” vision, the following are the rationale which serves as the primordial backbone for having necessity to adopt [PKES] as a promising educational reform in the Philippines, and as here notated as [R]:

6 A constructivist teacher, DeVries (2002) says that a child cannot construct complex relations

with just 15 minutes of exploration a day. K to 12 allots 40 t0 50 minutes for every subject in any given

day for class interaction. 7 Generally, K to12 education implements the Standard-Based Assessment as an assessment

tool. If a test is done following the SBA, the student is graded when he/she fully understood the lesson.

Formative tests will be given prior to a quiz, but will not be graded to give chance for the students to practice their knowledge first until they get the topic’s point.



ISSN 1908-4697

58

1. [R1]: To decongest the curriculum: According to the DepEd, while the [PKES] is not totally a definitive solution to all the problems which deteriorate the Philippine educational system, it would however resolve one of its main weaknesses – that is, the congested curriculum. The DepEd explains that the students are hard pressed to learn in 10 years a curriculum that is actually designed for 12 years in other countries. Hence, Filipino students are not able to achieve the desired degree comprehension and the level of mastery particularly in core subjects of the basic education8.

2. [R2]: To prepare the students for higher education: Based on the DepEd’s assessment, secondary graduates of the current 10-year education system are not adequately prepared for college. They pointed out that this is why most of the courses, the so-called General Education subjects, taken by first year college students are actually remedial as they should have already been mastered in high school. With [PKES], students will be better prepared as introductory courses that are currently taught at the tertiary level will be included in the high school curriculum.

3. [R3]: To prepare the students for the labor market: According to the

DepEd, with the 10-year basic education cycle, students usually graduate from high school below 18 years old; which according to their comparative assessment with other educational system globally, these graduates are too young to legally join the labor force or put up a business that will entail them to enter into contracts. And since, because they have not mastered the necessary competencies, graduates of the current education system often lack skills; and therefore, they are vulnerable to exploitative labor practices. The DepEd claimed that [PKES] would empower them to confidently join the labor market, in which by the time they graduate they already are of legal age and equipped with sufficient technical, vocational, or entrepreneurial skills.

8 Perhaps the most damning proof of this is the result of the 2008 FLEMMS, which revealed

that 19 percent of elementary graduates are not functionally literate (Action for Economic Reforms and E-NET, 2008). Functional literacy means a person can read, write, compute and comprehend. The DepEd

claimed that with K to 12, students will not have to rush through the lessons anymore. It will also do

away with unnecessary topics in the curriculum so that students will develop competencies and acquire life skills that will make them productive members of the society.



ISSN 1908-4697

59

4. [R4]: To comply with the global standards: At present, graduates

who wish to work abroad are at a disadvantage because they are not automatically recognized as professionals while students who apply for postgraduate studies often have to enroll in or take remedial courses to meet the entrance requirements of the foreign country9.

It seems to me, nevertheless, that what is really the core of this

set of rationale for [PKES] is motivated by global demand and necessity, and not really to enhance the proficiency and efficiency of the Filipino graduates as truly educated Filipino individuals. Instead, the primary criterion of being an educated Filipino is his/her global functionality. SOME CONSIDERATION ON THE POSTMODERN CHALLENGES TO PHILIPPINE K-12 EDUCATIONAL LANDSCAPE Through the CDA mentioned earlier, I tender my critical demonstration of the main argument being proposed in this paper by using the information presented in sections two and three.

First, I demonstrate my argument and challenge in support of

[P2], thus: [P2]: Since K-12 educational system is highly encrypted with postmodern

ingredients and procedures; it also imbibes in its system operations some of the postmodern perspectives such as nihilism, variation, and differentiation.

The challenge #1 [CH1]: Constructivist Educational Politics:

by adopting [PKES], the derived educational meanings, demands, necessities, and phenomena are actually “global-construct” as related [FE1] based on [R1] and [R4], which result to [CF2].

Accordingly, there is a nihilistic praxis in this sense, since

education is no longer to attain truth as truth; rather education is to

9 For instance, the Washington Accord signed in 1989 prescribes 12 years of basic education

as a requirement for the recognition of engineering professionals. Likewise, the Bologna Accord of 1999 requires 12 years of education for university admission and practice of profession in European countries.



ISSN 1908-4697

60

adopt truth as being constructed by the global society, as being dictated by the labor market and global standards. The contextual variation is manifested in such a way that education is constituted by categorized skills based on standards and demands; instead of holistic educational formation as indicated in [P1] manifested in [FE2], and as related to [CF2] based on [R3] and [R4]. As a consequence, there is a degenerative differentiation among the graduates of [PKES] since, the graduate may take [R2] or not insofar as they comply with the aforementioned considerations in [R3] and [R4]. Second, I demonstrate my argument and challenge in support of [P3], thus:

[P3]: also, the motivation of this system is based on relations of power, dominance of demands, commodification of competencies, and resistance to inequality.

So, the challenge #2 [CH2]: Strategized Repression: education is

no longer avenue for social equality and democracy; rather education is an ‘ideological apparatus’ of symbolic repression through differentiation of social equality stipulated by power relation, demand hegemony, commodified competency, and equality blackmail. This apparatus is obviously institutionalized in [FE’s] which are being revitalized in [R’s], especially in [R3] and [R4].

Consequently, power relation 10 is embedded in the struggle for

knowledge - those who have great degree of knowledge as demonstrated between the vocational skills and professional career. Demand hegemony11 is manifested in the labor market scheme – where the education is determined and manipulated by industry demand; those who considered as knowledgeable are those who comply with these industry demands. Competency is the commodity which has exchange value and market value – the lesser the competency the lesser the value; the higher the competency the higher the value. And finally, there is an equality blackmail12, a sort of ideological apparatus, in the sense that while [PKES] promises global competency in accordance with the international standards, this system makes their graduates believe and accept that they

10 As Michel Foucault discussed in his article “Power/knowledge” (1972) 11 It has crucial relation in Fredric Jameson’s analysis of postmodernism and capitalism in his

article entitled “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic Late Capitalism” (1984) 12 It is radically connected with Jean Baudrillard’s security as blackmail for social control in

his “Symbolic Exchange and Death” (1993)



ISSN 1908-4697

61

have the equal opportunity and competency along with the rest of the other graduates on the same system in other countries; however, the truth is that in virtue of [R3] and [R4], these graduates are valued as ‘competent commodities’ to amplify power relation and to extend demand hegemony. And third, I render my argument demonstrating the challenge in support of [P4], hence:

[P4]: So from [P1], it seems that [PKES] is inconsistent to itself, containing a vacuum learning – that is, it affirms what it has abandoned/rejected and it abandons/rejects what it has affirmed, as derived from [P2] and [P3].

The challenge #3 [CH3]: Content-Process-Result

Inconsistency: if [P1] is true as the Anticipated Result, by which its Standard Content is based on [P3] induced by [R3], [R4] and [FE1]; and which the Modified Process is expressed in [CF2], [CF3] and [CF4] based on [FE’s] and [R’s]; then [P4] is also true. In symbolic notation, therefore: Given,

[P1] is true (i.e. df) [P4] is true (i.e. df)

If,

[P4] is the negative inverse of [P1], based on the evidences in challenge #3

And since,

[P4] entails the conjunction of [P2] and [P3], based on the evidences in challenge #3

Hence, [P1] is nil; i.e., [P1] is a self-inconsistent (or self-

contradictory) system.

As such, the [PKES], therefore, has constitutively implicit internal inconsistency (or contradiction) in its structural-functional components, at least in the context of our Philippine educational landscape at present. SOME REPLIES TO POSTMODERN CHALLENGES:



ISSN 1908-4697

62

POSTMODERNISM, PHILOSOPHY, AND THE PHILIPPINE K-12 EDUCATION This section is in support of [P5] of the main argument, thus:

[P5]: However, philosophy as an approach would then play a vital role in demonstrating [PKES] to remain consistent insofar as postmodern education is viewed as constructivism; and even while postmodernism still takes its effects on this system of educational paradigm.

Postmodernism is better understood as an “attitude” or “cultural

self-consciousness” rather than a discipline or a method of philosophy. This attitude or self-consciousness is most likely characterized by negative approach; hence, postmodern thinking is generally a via negativa. Accordingly, in the postmodern historical context, philosophy as well is no longer a specific kind of discipline or area of strict educational concern. Rather, it is an approach to frame a perspective of understanding regarding the relations and interrelations of certain specific competencies with the general educational backdraft – that is, the horizon of concurrent social, political, cultural and economic system.

Hence, postmodernism confirms the description of postmodern education as a social constructivism, as much as it is ‘critical pedagogy’, wherein knowledge is not anymore discovered; but instead constructed, derived from the interaction of different agencies and people in a given social sphere. Variety and diversity are the two main character of educational approach of postmodern education. Its main aim is the production of meaning to broaden the horizon of understanding as well as to push the limit of boundaries in human existence. Its pivotal goal is to exercise self- and social empowerment through critical discourses between the self and society, against any form of oppression. The teaching-learning process is not much of classroom instruction, but through social participatory activities and critical discourse analyses. Teachers are no longer the sole source of knowledge, but serve as facilitating guide to students in these activities and discourses.

From the above general description of postmodernism,

philosophy and postmodern education, I intend to provide some responses on the aforementioned postmodern challenges, thus:

First, reply to [CH1]: educational politics is the politics of

compliance. Education previously seemed to be the producer of



ISSN 1908-4697

63

knowledge to guide beliefs and to construe truths in correspondence to external reality. However, in the current globalized educational paradigm, education is seen as consumer, as much as distributor, of knowledge and truth which are socially constructed. The transition of this function of education from producer into consumer/distributor is due to pervasive labor market demand from the economic industries accompanied by implementation of internationalized standards and requirements.

Accordingly, philosophy as an approach to understanding would

then be able to provide perspective into which educational politics is dominant in the system, thereby ensuring that self-empowerment against possible oppression remain to be neutralized and stabilized. In this context, implosion and ambivalence between social demands and individual capabilities are inevitable. The Philippine government consequently can review the components, especially those contents referring to international standards for marker labor demands, of the [PKES] which are crucially destructive of the cultural self-consciousness of the Filipino students13. The labor market should not only refer to international market labor segments, but must also refer to local market segments; and thus, must be instilled to students that they are the labor market themselves, not just ‘competent commodity supplies’ for these international market labor demands; as such, this is another way of ensuring self-empowerment through philosophy as an approach by way of critical discourses.

Second, reply to [CH2]: this sort of repression is manifested in

producing graduates to become “competent commodities” in the labor market of other countries’ industries. Although these “competent commodities” are given high value because of their efficiency, nevertheless, their very most competence – as the embodiment of themselves, are being objectified, reducible into mere functional entities. This commodification and objectification are in fact modes of repression, and from which the power relations remain still in the domain of the “masters”, the industries. The strategy of this sort of repression is clearly seen as a social manipulation in terms of formulating job demands as well as constructing market schemes to which education is being forced to provide supplies; such is also

13 Those graduates of K-12 education in other countries, especially those countries which

demand for such compliance for market labor, have seldom thought of working abroad, to serve other countries.



ISSN 1908-4697

64

tantamount to be identified as demand hegemony. In other words, strategized repression is a social manipulation through education.

As such, by adopting [PKES] it seems that the Philippine society

has tacitly accepted this kind of repression which is strategically implied in this newly adopted system of education. Philosophy is then crucial for critical examination of this social and educational phenomenon such as [PKES] in relation to this tacit kind of repression. As an approach, philosophy would serve as decipher or decoder of the hidden structure of individual and social repression. Philosophy would provide avenues for options and alternatives, yet not necessarily that philosophy is the option or the alternative per se. rather, it gives a banquet of considerations to minimize if not totally eradicate this strategized repression.

And third, reply to [CH3]: as seen in the argument, there seems

that [PKES] is self-inconsistent, which is actually self-destructive insofar as it is a kind of system. Inconsistency of a system is a clear sign of inefficiency and weakness of such system in questioned. In the context of [PKES], this inconsistency might be due to its source framework or reference – being an adaptation of K-12 system of other countries. It should be noted that every nation or country has its own unique socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural horizons rightfully owned by this particular country; along with its diversified, yet nevertheless unique composition of demography. It is quite acceptable that it might be true that all K+12 systems follow certain globally recognized standard of patterns for its content, however, modified accordingly; and follow globally recognized standard of formats for processual operation and implementation, and again however, modified accordingly. Yet, variety and diversity to which such system is to be applied are nonetheless locally patterned and structured – those who have no external reference framework from which they are patterned or formatted. In other words, Inconsistency is inconsistency towards the standards constituting such system. As a result when the system is applied using standard to non-standard, it produces its own self-inconsistency.

Consequently, however, K-12 education system specifically the

[PKES] is a variety of postmodern education which might be considered to be under postmodernism or postmodern philosophy; and as such, inconsistency together with variation and differentiation are some of characteristics of postmodern attitude and self-consciousness. In this



ISSN 1908-4697

65

sense, being a kind of postmodern education under the postmodern educational framework called ‘constructivism’, [PKES] as self-inconsistent does not entirely reducible to nonsense. In fact considering philosophy as an approach, inconsistency is another term for postmodern approach which is via negativa. For instance, nihilism is branded before as inconsistent theory of truth and reality for quite some time in the history of philosophy - especially during the dominancy of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and eventually during the golden age of rationalism and empiricism. Yet at the current philosophical context started from Nietzsche, nihilism has become a dependable philosophical theory to understand and to explain the nature of reality, especially social phenomena.

Hence, philosophy as an approach could make use of this

inconsistency as base-form to arrive at a more harmonious perspective about certain social and educational phenomena. In other words, philosophy can ‘strategize’ such self-inconsistency of [PKES] to re-evaluate the adaptive mechanism of certain recognized standards as operationally implemented to certain non-standard concerns – such as the Filipino students. Such ‘strategizing’ nevertheless would somehow lead towards the attainment of the so-called “Functional Literacy for all Filipinos”. CONCLUSION: POSTERING A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS A POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO “PKES” It is by no doubt that [PKES] is the better-half option, if not essentially the best alternative system, to enhance the quality of education in the Philippines today. Discourse such as the present paper has become even more valuable because of the seemingly inconsistent nature of this newly implemented education system.

It is often than not that when we hear certain descriptive

referential criteria such as “international standards”, “internationally recognized or accredited”, or “globally competitive”, we unconsciously are accepting them as ‘right’, ‘true’, and ‘correct’. But, using a kind of critical discourse analysis as a postmodern philosophical approach to these descriptions, we are eventually bewildered if whether what we do is based on “international standard”, or “internationally recognized”, or “globally competitive” – without even factually recognizing that what we



ISSN 1908-4697

66

do is in fact ‘right’, ‘true’, or ‘correct’ even though it is not necessarily based on those criteria.

This is precisely the highly commendable character of [PKES] as

a postmodern education in the form of educational framework of ‘constructivism’. In fact as being modeled from a constructivist educational framework, [PKES] is a “learning task” in itself - that is to say, these criteria: “international standards”, “internationally recognized or accredited”, and “globally competitive” are actually social constructs without inherent reality or truth, other than being highly regarded as ‘right’, ‘true’, and ‘correct’ by a given society, or societies – that is, determined by those societies which are considered as the master precursors of progress, advancement and success. They constructed these criteria first and foremost for themselves, and eventually imposed to others as if these criteria would be also beneficial for these ‘victimized’ ‘Others’. It is then no wonder why these ‘Others’ eventually engage to certain critical discourses to unfold whether these criteria are in fact beneficial for them as well, or only for those master precursors alone.

Nevertheless, our philosophical task is still to reveal whether

[PKES] is actually beneficial for us – the ‘Filipinos’; or it would still remain to be a sort upgraded strategic mode for global-wide domination and repression by means of education – a transmutation of the old-age stigma of social discrimination and oppression. The [PKES] issue remains an open-ended – with no definite description or conclusive recommendation – just as postmodernism, postmodern philosophy, and postmodern education remain as such with no yet punctuation period.

REFERENCES: Action for Economic Reforms and E-NET. (2008). Preliminary Notes on

FLEMMS 2008. http://e-netphil.org/main/images/stories/ research_materials/Flemms_Notes_2008.pdf.

Batomalaque, Antonio. Basic Science Development Program of the Philippines for International Cooperation. University of San Carlos.; Marinas, Bella and Ditapat, Maria. Philippines: Curriculum and Development. UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

Curriculum Development in the Philippines.February 2010. Retrieved from http://thepinkpopcorn.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/curriculum-development-in-the-philippines-k12-and-more/

Department of Education. Basic Education Information System. National Statistics Office. 2008 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey.

______. Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey 2005.


http://e-netphil.org/main/images/stories/


ISSN 1908-4697

67

_______. (2010, October 5). Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program.

_______. (2010, November 2). Salient Points on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program.

Felipe, A. & Porio, C. (2010, September). Length of School Cycle and “Quality of Education”. Philippine Education Research Journal (www.perj.org).

http://www.gov.ph/2012/04/24/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-launch-of-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program-april-24-2012-english-translation/http://www.gov.ph/k-12/Lagura, Glenn et.al.,An Analysis of the Policy: K-12 Education Program. University of Southeastern Philippines. College of Governance Business and Economics. 31 March 2012.

Jonathan Plucker. Problems as Possibilities: Problem-based Learning for k-12 education. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6470/is_1_22/si_n28742235

Junifen F. Gauuan. K+12 Policy Framework: Pessimistic, Optimistic or Realistic? March 26, 2011. Retrieved from http.//www.aldersgatecollege.com/news/highschool/k-12-policy- framework-pessimistic-optimistic-or-realistic/

K-12 Challenge to Philippine Tertiary Education. Retrieved from http.//rodrigo75.wordpress.com/2011/04/10k-12-challenge-to-phillipine-tertiary-education/

Nakanishi, Toru. 1990. “The Market in the Urban Informal Sector: A Case Study in Manila, the Philippines.” Developing Economies 28, no.3:271-301

Policy Brief.Senate Economic Planning Office. June 2011. Retrieved from www.senate.gov.ph

Presentation notes of Dr. Isagani Cruz, 28 September 2010. Sarah Katrina Maramag. Proposed K12 Basic Education System in the

Philippines. Is the K-12 model good for the Philippine Education System?, via Philippine Online Chronicles. Retrieved from http.//blogwatch.tv/2011/05/proposed-k-12-basic-education-system-in-sthe-philippines/

Seamo-Inothech.Additional Years in Philippine Basic Education: Rational and Legal Bases. Presentation to the Department of Education on 25 August 2010. Presentation notes of Dr. Isagani Cruz. 13 August 2014.

Tan, E. (2011, January 26). The Challenge of K-12 given during the Instituting Reforms. A forum on the K+12 Program.

1987 Constitution Of The Republic Of The Philippines. Article VI. Section 1.






http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6470/is_1_22/si_n28742235

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6470/is_1_22/si_n28742235

http://www.senate.gov.ph/

philippine k -12 system in the postmodern education · pdf filebaybayin vol. i, no. 1 (august...

Documents