Stella Quimbo quizzes DepEd about Applied Economics subjects in K-12

Rep. Stella Quimbo. FB page photo

MANILA, Philippines — Marikina 2nd District Rep. Stella Quimbo has quizzed the Department of Education (DepEd) about the need to include applied economics subjects inside the K-12 curriculum when not all students take a program related to business or economics.

At the hearing of the House of Representatives’ committee on basic education and culture on Monday, Quimbo revealed that the K-12 curriculum features four hours of applied economics — which she thinks is curious because it seems the department skipped basic economics.

Quimbo used to be a professor at her alma mater, the University of the Philippines (UP) – Diliman’s School of Economics.

“Please explain to us what these additional two years of academic track courses are?  Because for example, to be specific, you have here four applied economic subjects, four hours.  I have been teaching economics for 26 years, what is that all about?  Applied economics?  I mean, sorry, it’s a puzzle for me, what is DepEd teaching about applied economics?” Quimbo asked in English and Filipino.

“It’s applied economics immediately, not basic economics.  Straight to applied economics.  I mean, and that’s for all students […] applied economics, I mean, why teach?  I mean, that’s a college course, right?  So, what if not all students would take up economics-related programs?” she added.

READ: Labor group warns Stella Quimbo: Privatizing PhilHealth a backwards move

Quimbo also noted that this is counterproductive as when she was still a professor at UP Diliman, she was part of the team tasked to assess if there are math subjects that can be removed from their programs’ course offerings.  The proposal to remove math subjects was due to a possible redundancy with what was already taught under the K-12 curriculum, particularly at the senior high level.

However, Quimbo said that they failed to recommend the removal of any mathematics subject as the kind of math needed at the level of state universities and colleges (SUCs) was not taught under K-12.

“And to be honest with you, when I was in UP, I was the chair, they asked me to look at the math courses in Grades 11 and 12, and on the basis of the content, if we can remove other requirements at the economics at business economics programs since we have already added two years,” Quimbo relayed.

“We studied it intently, but we apologized because we cannot really remove subjects that we are teaching or courses that we are requiring for our courses because you don’t teach what we need to be taught.  So for the children studying, at least let’s say with the School of Economics, these two additional years in the basic education would not respond to the existing college courses in some SUCs,” she added.

With this in mind, Quimbo said that the time and money for tuition fees of Filipino families were only wasted on the K-12 program.

“Kasi remember we added two years of basic education.  Back in the day all of us here did not go through Grades 11 and 12 but we passed the universities’ entrance tests and we performed well […] So that’s what I am, we are all asking here: what was the purpose of these two additional years of academic track?” she asked.

College entrance exam

“Unless the standards of the colleges increased significantly — are college entrance exams in all colleges now so hard that we need two years sa basic education just so you could pass or enter?  Do we know that for a fact, Ched (Commission on Higher Education)?” Quimbo asked

In response, CHEd Director Edizon Fermin said there is no definitive data that would point to college entrance exams getting harder.

“That’s what we are talking about.  Yet, we have placed an additional burden to the people, worth two years.  We’re talking about the direct cost and delay of two years on the entry to the labor market,” Quimbo noted.  “That’s so hard on Filipino families.”

Prior to Quimbo’s comments on the K-12 program, committee chairperson and Pasig City Rep. Roman Romulo called out DepEd over the presence of a bridging program, which they believe only creates an additional stumbling block for students.

Romulo asked DepEd why there is a bridging program — a short supplementary or remedial course that would make K-12 graduates ready for tertiary programs — when the K-12 program itself should have been enough to prepare students.

“Because as an example, there are universities and colleges that if you want to enter their engineering courses, they require students to go through the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) strand.  Is that fair?  So at grade 10, after grade 10, the students have to decide already?” he asked in a mix of English and Filipino.

“Is that fair? Is that something that should have been corrected a long time ago? We should have been fair to our students.  Before, if you graduate fourth-year high school, you are ready for everything.  But why is it that when we added two more years, suddenly they were not ready?” he added.

Basic academic experience

The K-12 program was implemented during the time of former president Benigno Aquino III, as policy makers were concerned that Filipino workers lacked two years of basic academic experience, as a lot of countries operated on a 13-year pre-university program — one year for kindergarten, six years of elementary school, four years of junior high school, and two years of senior high.

But over the years, there have been calls to revamp the K-12 system as the additional two years supposedly did not address the bad performance of Filipino students.

A United Nations Children’s Fund report in 2023 stressed the need to “harness the potential” of early childhood education as it was discovered that in Southeast Asia alone, the Philippines’ Grade 5 students’ reading and math skills was second-worst, even behind war-torn Myanmar.

READ: Southeast Asia rank: PH 2nd to worst in Grade 5 students’ reading, math skills

In December 2023, the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) said that Filipino students who took part in their assessment were five to six years behind in mathematics, science, and reading compared to their 15-year-old counterparts from most of the participating countries. / MR