In the Philippines today, many families are struggling. Food prices are rising, wages are stagnant, and sending children to school has become an ever-growing financial burden. It’s no wonder that some voices are calling for a rollback of the Senior High School (SHS) program, arguing that cutting Grades 11 and 12 would lessen costs and allow students to work and earn sooner.
It’s a tempting proposition. But it is also a dangerous one. For in trying to solve an immediate problem, we may be setting our children—and our country—up for a much deeper, long-term loss.
A Hard-Won Reform
The Senior High School program, part of the broader K to 12 reform introduced in 2013, was never a mere bureaucratic add-on. It was a strategic investment meant to align Philippine education with global standards, enhance the employability of young Filipinos, and give them real options: college, employment, or entrepreneurship. Those two additional years were designed not just to teach more content, but to deepen critical thinking, build technical skills, and instill maturity.
Prior to K to 12, the Philippines was one of the last countries in the world with a 10-year basic education cycle. Our graduates were often seen as underprepared abroad, whether for university or employment. We were shortchanging them—sending them into the world with fewer tools in an increasingly competitive global economy.
The Appeal of Shortening—and the Risks
The call to shorten high school often centers around cost. According to a 2018 study in Region XI, a public school SHS student spends about ₱27,000 annually on transportation, food, supplies, uniforms, and fees. For low-income families, especially those with multiple children, this is no small sum.
Would removing two years from the system ease this burden? Superficially, yes. It would mean earlier entry into the labor force and lower day-to-day expenses. But that relief comes at a steep price.
Shortening SHS would:
• Undermine academic and skills preparation for college and work;
• Reduce the employability of graduates in a knowledge-driven economy;
• Increase in drop-out rates in higher education due to unpreparedness;
• Devalue the academic standing of Filipino students in the global context;
• Reverse years of effort to raise our education system to international standards.
Imagine a nation where our young people are forced to grow up faster, with less education, fewer skills, and smaller chances for upward mobility. That’s the real cost of this proposal—and it’s one we must refuse to pay.
Global Evidence Points the Other Way
Around the world, countries are moving in the opposite direction—not shortening, but expanding education. Kenya’s 2017 competency-based reform extended basic education to 13 years. South Korea integrates science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) into its SHS system. In Ireland, students are given an optional transition year to mature and explore career paths. Even the U.S. continues to invest in four-year high school models that build both academic and career readiness.
Why? Because nations understand that human capital is their most valuable resource. The 21st century belongs to those who are educated, adaptive, and ready to lead in technology, innovation, and service. Slashing education at a time like this would not be pragmatic—it would be suicidal.
Of course, the program is far from perfect. There are infrastructure gaps, overloaded teachers, and a need for more meaningful industry linkages. BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT TO DESTROY THE PROGRAM—IT IS TO FIX IT.
The Real Solution: Better Support, Not Less Education
Rather than cutting the number of years in school, we should be strengthening the support system around our students.
1. Expand financial aid and subsidies. SHS vouchers, food allowances, transportation support, and digital tools should be made more accessible, especially for students from marginalized communities.
2. Build stronger school-to-work pathways. TESDA-accredited tracks must be expanded and made more responsive to regional labor needs. Dual training, apprenticeships, and close coordination with local industries can bridge the classroom and the job market.
3. Make learning flexible. Modular, online, and evening classes can help working students continue their education. In rural and geographically isolated areas, alternative delivery modes must be scaled up.
4. Change the narrative. We must help families understand that SHS is not a burden, but a ladder. Through public information campaigns, success stories, and community engagement, we can restore trust and enthusiasm in the program.
A Moral and National Imperative
At its heart, this is more than a debate about curriculum. It is a test of our values. Are we willing to invest in the future of the Filipino youth, or will we sacrifice long-term gains for short-term savings?
Shortening high school may offer temporary financial relief, but it threatens to deepen cycles of poverty and limit the very mobility we claim to desire. The true burden lies not in the number of years in school but in the absence of equitable support that allows every child to finish those years with dignity and hope.
We are not being asked to make education longer. We are being called to make it stronger.
Conclusion: A Runway, Not a Roadblock
In a rapidly evolving world, where skills and knowledge are the new currency, a robust education system is our only defense—and our best offense. Senior High School, if fully supported and continuously improved, can be the launchpad that elevates millions of young Filipinos toward their dreams.
Let us not demolish that runway. Let us extend it. Reinforce it. Let us build a future where education opens doors, not closes them.
The Filipino youth deserve nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment