In its 1998 report on the state of world population, the United Nations Population Fund noted that while the number of people aged 60 and above stood at nearly 600M, young people between the ages of 15-24 numbered 1.05B. Making up 20% of the world population, 85% of these youth lived in developing countries. Globally, Asia had the largest share of adolescents (aged 10-19) and other young age groups, with 60% of the world population. (UNFPA, 1998)
Needless to say, poor societies especially face increasing pressures to provide for the developmental needs of young people. Ironically, for such a large group in such an important phase of their lives, the youth are remarkably absent from the development policies in most societies, both as participants and as beneficiaries of development programs. (Auer, no date)
So much has already been said about the important role of youth as a strong human resource base that can further enhance and sustain a country’s level of development. But, to fulfill this role, the youth must also be able to explore their full potentials and develop themselves individually. They must be able to enjoy their inalienable rights to survival, development, protection and participation.
Education
1. Demands of Technology
As the world economy becomes increasingly dependent on advanced information and communications technologies to create new production systems and generate wealth, developing countries like the Philippines are pressured to produce technically competent personnel in order to compete in the global arena. Gone are the days when all the country could boast of is a vast pool of cheap and low-skilled labor to attract foreign investment, if only because emerging economies like Vietnam, Cambodia and others can provide even cheaper sources of low-skilled labor. But going up the “hierarchy of labor quality” cannot be achieved, much less sustained without the provision of and access to high quality education and training. Philippine education is challenged to provide young people with marketable knowledge and skills in the information age.
However, it is apparent that the country is finding it difficult to face this challenge. According to the participants of the Regional Youth Summits Philippine education cannot cope with the demands of technology. Youth from various sectors in Region 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and NCR cited the problem of a technologically inept education sector during the regional consultations. For the detailed responses of the participants, refer to Annex G.
2. Access to Education
Over the past years, various government policies had been enacted to ensure that every Filipino is provided with equitable access, high quality and relevant education. But despite these initiatives, many young Filipinos among the poor and from rural areas do not have access to basic education; for example, in SY 1999-2000, only 65.44% of high school-age youth managed to enroll (versus government target of 67.82%). Too, the drop-out rate for the same school year was at 13.02%, below the national target of 10.08%. (NEDA, April 2001)
Results of the Regional Youth Summits also show that government policies have not been enough to cushion the impact of the inaccessibility of education in the country. Several regional participants articulated that the drop-out rate in schools in Region 6, 8, 10, 12 and CAR have been increasing lately.
DECS data for SY 1999-2000 show that 12.6M children were enrolled in elementary school (93% in public schools), and 5.1M in high school (76% in public schools). However, secondary enrolment remained heavily concentrated in NCR, Region 3 and 4, which accounted for 40% of total secondary enrolment. In addition, provinces with high poverty incidence and low life expectancy rates, particularly in Muslim Mindanao, also registered a significant decline in basic enrolment ratio. (NSO, 2000)
The 1999 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey also shows that:
ð of the 5.2M families with children aged 13-16, 3.1M (58.9%) had members currently enrolled in high school, but only 842,751 of such families came from the lowest 40% – a decline of 11 percentage points from 1998 figures
ð of the 2M families with children in tertiary school, 259,831 (12.8%) had members in tertiary school who received scholarship from government or the private sector – an increase of 3.2% from 1998 – but only 29,345 beneficiary-families belonged to the lowest 40%.
Generally, most tertiary schools are concentrated in NCR, Region 3 and 4, and the more affluent regions of the country. Since most of these schools are privately owned and charge high tuition fees, it is hardly surprising that only the well-off and well-prepared students are accepted. (ESCAP, 2000)
The participants of the Regional Youth Summits agree to the foregoing statement that says education in our country is expensive. The table below illustrates what sector of the youth complained of the high price of education, and what regions are affected.
YOUTH CATEGORY REGIONS AFFECTED BY HIGH TUITION FEES
In- School Youth 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, NCR
Out-of- School Youth 1, 5, 10, 12
Working Youth 5, 6, 12
Youth with Special Needs 12
The expensive nature of education has led the youth to conclude that education is a privilege, rather than a right. The following table specifies the sectors and regions affected by the inaccessibility of education, based on the Regional Youth Summits results.
YOUTH CATEGORY REGIONS AFFECTED BY INACCESSIBILITY OF EDUCATION
In- School Youth 5, 8, 9, CAR
Out-of- School Youth 1, 5, 6, CAR
Working Youth 5
Youth with Special Needs 3
The inaccessibility of education, and the high price it takes to obtain it is further aggravated by the fact that scholarships are hard to acquire because of stringent requirements (reported by Region 1, 9, 11, NCR), or these were not fairly distributed (according to representatives of Region 1, 9, 11, 12, CAR and NCR).
3. Quality of Education
Besides improving access, more effort must be exerted to raise the quality of education. Data culled over the years provide an alarming picture: from 1983 to the present, the drop-out rate among high school students has steadily increased from 6.04% in SY 1988-89 to 13.02% in SY 1999-2000. The completion rate, which measures the proportion of students finishing high school, has generally shown that 25-30% of high school students never get to do it. (NYC, 1998 and NEDA, April 2001)
The decline in the quality of education is commonly attributed to inadequate or inappropriate government spending. Though DECS’ budget has consistently gotten the largest share of the total budget for social services since as far back as 1975, much of this has gone to pay for personal services (salaries and other forms of compensation). For example, in 1987 personal services had a 68.9% share in the DECS budget; this had risen to 89.1% by 1998. On the other hand, a very small percentage is spent on good and adequate textbooks, laboratories, libraries and other learning facilities, maintenance and repair of dilapidated classrooms, etc. Exacerbating the problem is, of course, corruption; for example, textbooks for public schools marked “Government Property: Not for Sale” often find their way in retail vending outlets (HDN, 2000)
Comparison of Textbooks per Pupil in Elementary and Secondary Public Schools (selected years and subjects)
Year Elementary High School
TOTAL* Eng Sci Math Social Studies TOTAL* Eng Sci Math Social Studies
1983 2.39 1.11 0.16 0.26 0.13 3.25 0.61 0.45 0.58 0.83
1989 3.12 0.93 - 0.65 0.65 no data -o- -o- -o- -o-
1994 3.72 0.88 - 0.62 1.24 3.38 0.65 0.44 0.38 1.53
1995 2.96 0.69 - 0.43 1.01 2.52 0.49 0.31 0.29 1.15
1997 3.44 0.94 - 0.69 1.06 1.21 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.42
1998 2.50 0.72 - 0.54 0.42 1.03 0.17 0.11 0.22 0.34
1999 1.38 0.42 - 0.33 0.38 0.60 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.11
* includes books for Filipino
The preceding table shows in detail two important facts:
· over the years but especially from 1995, high school student were given fewer textbooks and have had to share their books
· that government could not adequately cope with the burgeoning demand for textbooks, due to various reasons, is evidenced by the remarkably low textbook-student ratio among high school students by the time of the Estrada administration in 1999
The shortage of textbooks was also raised by participants of the Regional Youth Summits. According to delegates from Region 3, 8, and 11, there was a glaring lack of textbooks in their respective schools.
Besides the lack of textbooks, the situation of teachers has a lot to do with the decline in quality. Statistics culled from 1945/46 to 1996/97 show that the number of teachers had steadily risen over the 30 year-period with annual growth rate of 5.4%. Presently numbering to around 600,000 (in public and private schools), teachers constitute the largest professional occupation in the country. But such a large teaching force is still unable to cope with the even larger student population. While the pupil-teacher ratio in SY 1997-98 was 35:1 in public elementary schools and 34:1 in public secondary schools, such numbers do not represent actual class sizes, which better reflect the learning conditions that students face. The average class size for public elementary schools is 41, and 50 for public high schools. (HDN, 2000) It must be noted, however, that “average class size” provides a incomplete picture, in that regional disparities in class size abound, with communities in far-flung rural areas and depressed urban areas having a class size of as much as 70 students at a time.
Region 6 is one sample. According to In-School Youth in the area, the pupil-teacher ratio is 70:1. Participants from this region complained that it was hard enough that they have to walk 3 to 7 kilometers everyday to reach their school, but to hold it under trees, together with 69 other students is just too much.
Other youth also complained of the perceived incompetency of their teachers. Participants from Region 6 cited the experience of HRM students in their area, “Students are trained to become waiters rather than to become professionals. ” They added, “Schools do not teach us to become self-reliant.” This, and a host of other problems, has greatly contributed to the decline in the quality of education. This has prompted In-School Youth from various regions to become frustrated with what they call the system of “miseducation” in the country.
The decline in quality is also evidenced by poor results in standardized examinations like NEAT, NSAT and professional examinations. In SY 1999-2000 the actual achievement level for NEAT was 49.19 (versus target of 52.58) and for NSAT 53.34 as against target of 48.62. For higher education, the average passing percentage in national board exams was 44.38, which fell short of the government target of 50. (NEDA, April 2001) Unfortunately, there is a dearth of statistics that can provide a clearer and comprehensive picture of the state of higher education.
Other than accessibility and quality, students must see the relevance and applicability of education in their everyday lives, so that they will be motivated to remain in school. This is especially true for poor families and indigenous and/or non-Christian communities. Unfortunately, the curriculum development policy largely takes on a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
This gap in policy has been deeply felt by the youth. Participants in the Youth Summit in Region 2 articulated their need for more skills and livelihood training in schools. For them, education is their only hope for a better future, so it is imperative that education should be improved, and geared towards the real lives of the students. Region 1 participants share the same sentiment. For them, education should become more relevant to their needs.
These same concerns were echoed by other participants in different provinces. In-School Youth from Region 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, CAR and CARAGA complained of the degradation of education, the irrelevant curriculum, and insufficient facilities and classrooms.
These problems in the education sector have devastating and far-reaching effects in the lives of the youth. Education equips the youth with the necessary skills and weapons to enable them to live their lives to their fullest potentials. But as the results of the Regional Youth Summits show, the youth are molded by a program of inaccessible education that is highly expensive and of poor quality. Philippine education if not improved upon in the immediate future, could be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, threat to our youth’s development.
Below is a table of education issues manifested by the youth in different regions:
EDUCATION REGIONS AFFECTED
Curriculum not suited for students / irrelevant 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, NCR
Education not accessible (formal/non-formal) esp. in rural areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, CAR
Education cannot cope with demand of info technology 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, NCR
High tuition fees / expensive tuition 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, NCR
Lack of competent teachers 2, 4, 11
Lack of education programs for Youth with Special Needs 3, 10, 11, NCR
Laziness of teachers / supervisors seldom visit the school 3, 9
Low achievement in NSAT 6,
Low budget for education 5, NCR
Many students drop out of classes 6, 8, 10, 12, CAR
Most children cannot go to college level 6
No system of education/lack of consistency in school policy 2, 6, 8
Only first class provinces have good colleges/schools 6,
Poor learning capacity of students 6, 12
Poor quality of education / low standard 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, CARAGA, NCR
Poor ventilation in classrooms especially gov't schools 2, 3
Scholarships given to not fairly distributed 1, 9, 11, 12, CAR, NCR
Grade requirement to avail of scholarship program too high 1, 9, 11, NCR
Schools do not cater to students from low income groups 3, NCR
Shortage of textbooks and school supplies 3, 8, 11
Shortage of facilities/buildings/classrooms 1 ,3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, CAR
Shortage of teachers/ low student-teacher ratio 6, 11
No literacy program/low literacy rate 6, 10, NCR
Unequal opportunities for educational assistance in gov't offices 3,
Commercialized education 8
Lack of teacher training 8, 10
« return.