BY HERMAN M. LAGON
THE K-12 program was meant to solve these problems by arming pupils with 21st-century-ready abilities. But the declining NAT (National Achievement Test) scores between K-12 implementation point to the program’s still-unmet promise delivery.
Logistically, the change has been hampered by poor teacher preparation, a lack of resources, and a curriculum that has yet to entirely match the requirements of the pupils or the expectations of international standards.
Though aspirational in its aims, the K-12 program has failed in its execution. Many of the teachers, who were unprepared for the new curriculum, battled to adjust, and the students — especially those in public schools — were burdened most of this change. The declining NAT scores among Grade 6 and Grade 10 children in the years following the introduction of K-12 sharply remind us that educational change, without appropriate support and resources, can cause more harm than good.
The Sulong Edukalidad program, which seeks to solve the shortcomings in the present curriculum through a thorough evaluation, enhancement of learning settings, and teacher upskilling, is one of the DepEd’s responses to these difficulties. Still, the success of these programs is yet to be seen; the shadow of past mistakes still looms large.
Looking back at the debates around the NAT and considering their ramifications for today, it is evident that integrity, justice, and authentic educational excellence are just as important now as they were in 2009.
The NAT, as it exists now, is a faulty tool that has been corrupted by a society that values appearances above reality. Creating an environment where actual learning is valued over mere test results, where students are encouraged to think critically and creatively, and where teachers are supported in their mission to educate, not only to prepare for tests, presents challenges for educators, legislators, and society.
If we are to solve these problems, we have to begin by reassessing the NAT’s place in the larger educational scene. This implies not only changing the test itself to better suit the students’ abilities and knowledge but also fostering a culture of integrity and honesty in our institutions. Whether by administrators, professors, or students, cheating is a sign of a deeper malaise — a system that has lost sight of its actual goal.
We have to learn from the past if we are to proceed. A sobering reminder should come from the lessons of the 2009 NAT controversy and the further disclosures on collusion among students and teachers, direct assistance of proctors, exclusion of low-performing students to skip the test, impersonation, answer switching, score manipulation, and other forms of cheating.
We must create an educational system that preserves the highest standards of integrity in all its assessments, promotes learning for its own sake, fosters a love of knowledge in our children, and supports their education.
In essence, the NAT is a test of the credibility of our educational system as much as of intellectual ability. The claims of cheating, the statistical oddities, and the continuous arguments on its validity all point to a system that requires change.
More importantly, though, they draw attention to the need for a national dialogue on what we value in education and how we could best help our children reach their potential. Let us look to the future with a fresh dedication to creating an educational system that meets every Filipino’s requirements as we consider the past.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./PN
