BY EDISON MARTE SICAD
“DO WE really need this Department Order No. 49 or is this just a wolf in sheep’s clothing?”
When a teacher reads this order, he will be able to sense its ulterior motive — despite its noble objectives. The underlying message is loud and clear: “Do not criticize (or educate) this department and its officials — or else.”
Obviously, a policy has its idealism that indeed cannot be questioned—in this case, professionalism. But the issue here goes beyond the letter of the law, so to speak. This pertains to the intention in issuing the order — which dampens our spirit.
The Affirmative side (in the previous article) argued on the necessity of the said order to foster professionalism in the teaching profession as well as protect the students from abuses. Fair enough.
But such objectives are already addressed in R.A. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and in our existing penal laws, specifically, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
We admit that there is a need for teachers to be more professional. The care and concern of the department for the students’ safety are also commendable. Yes. The order (DO 49) has its merits.
But the issue at hand is not the nobility of the teachers but rather the “failed promises” of the department and the chilling effect the order is creating to prevent teachers from “reminding” the officials concerned (pun intended) about the real scenario:
As of last August 10, we needed around 91,000 classrooms. In some areas in Metro Manila and Calabarzon, student-classroom ratio is 68:1. We also need 147,000 new teachers.
Professionalism? Ladies and gentlemen, this is how DepEd shows professionalism: lack of classrooms, lack of teachers, teachers with seven to eight teaching loads—with ancillary duties, temporary learning spaces (could also mean in the gym or under a tree), two to three shifting schedules, and mismatched curriculum goals with the realities encountered by students and teachers.
In other words, very high expectations in “ordering” (e.g., DO 49) but very low support in its delivery. Same old problems — and counting.
A democratic society—in the context of the government being “the agency through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and carried out”—is still hierarchical, and in our case, plagued by bureaucratic corruption that erodes the department’s foundation and stains the integrity of its actions.
The Affirmative side has mentioned that we need to come up with a better alternative. There is really no need to reinvent the wheel for professionalism to run its course.
You want a better alternative? Then in calling for professionalism, let it start from them! Let us demand what they promised to us. That would really be better.
The order also mentioned (more like a warning) the use of social media by the teachers. This is also a bit confusing. We are told to adapt and innovate but are discouraged to make the most of the technology that everyone (including the Affirmative side) practically uses.
You cannot blame the teachers if they use social media in communicating with their students. For what else will they use?
Further, teachers have the problem of parents becoming accomplices in cheating, e.g., answering the module or homework of their children. And despite the efforts of the teachers in following the policy of No Child Left Behind (NCLB of 2010), our students would still consistently lag way behind in international literacy tests — and this will also be blamed to the teachers.
There are just too many pressing issues to solve. And here we have another department order that does not practically solve anything — and they want us to say nothing about it.
If we are talking about democracy, then “reminding” teachers not to say anything bad about the system is in itself a disservice to the department, to the people, to the country. In short, totally undemocratic.
Kawawang mga teachers: naging alipin sa sariling bayan, inalipusta ng kapwa Pilipino, binalewala ang mga hinaing, at tinambakan ng sangkatutak na trabaho. At sa kaunting natitirang kalayaan — ang kalayaan sa pagpahiwatig ng saloobin — ito ay kukunin pa na may pagbabanta at pananakot.
Tayong mga guro ay hindi pagmamay-ari ng gobyerno. Hindi tayo palamuti para pagtakpan ang kanilang kapabayaan. Ginawa ka na ngang pipi, gagamitin ka pang panangga laban sa sakit, trahedya, at samu’t-saring sakuna.
Parating kasalanan natin. Parating magtitiis sa kakulangan sa silya, silid-aralan, pati na sa bondpaper. Halos lahat ng kabataan — na tinuturing na pag-asa ng bayan — ay ating gagabayan. Pero tayo ay parang tinuring na naninilbihan sa palasyo ng mga ganid na politiko: serbisyo na nilapastangan, mga tuntunin na ang dulot ay kalituhan, at higit sa lahat karunungan na walang kalayaan.
We have become the modern Placido Penitentes.
IN CLOSING, The Affirmative side has been proclaiming how splendid and magnificent the Emperor’s new clothes are. Indeed, there are those who join the Emperor in exclaiming, “Oh! It’s very pretty.”
But we in the Negative side would dare say — shout would be more appropriate, “The Emperor has no clothes!”
Let us open our eyes and see the hypocrisy of them all. The naked truth can be hurtful. But in this case, it is grossly laughable./PN
