NewsRecord Weekly Publication

Friendly Observer
By Arthur Keefe

The state of education 

in San Carlos

I was pleased to read my co-journalist advocating the creation of a state university here in San Carlos. The overwhelming arguments in favor of such a move do not need repeating. There is strong public and professional support in the city, despite rumored unscrupulous objections from the existing private colleges. Perhaps the next phase of political leadership can also promote this or at least declare their position during the election campaign. We will see.

Linked to this is the issue of the quality of education in the city, a subject on which I have often commented. My own family experience of elementary schooling has been quite positive. The teachers seem committed and the school organization seems sound. The curriculum could be much improved, but that is a national issue. I also believe that state education should be entirely secular and the religious indoctrination in the schools should cease. 
My main criticism of the local schools is the appalling communication with parents. The latest example is the closure of Ramon Magsaysay Elementary School for two weeks with no advance notice. As a result, my annual trip to relatives in Palawan will take place during school time, whereas if I had known in advance of the school closure, I would have arranged the trip during this period. 

It is not difficult to issue a school calendar at the start of the school year as I have often proposed. Failure to do so shows a lack of good management and disrespect for parents. The practice of making up lost days on Saturdays is more disruptive to family plans. 
I have no first-hand knowledge of the quality of high school education, although the emphasis on religious indoctrination in the private schools, and the large class sizes in the only public high school are well known. 
Another major concern I have is about the low standard in the private colleges. The tendency to didactic instruction, the lack of support resources such as computers and libraries, and yet again, the diversion into unrelated religious instructions, may in part explain the low standards, as well as the absence of qualified teachers. 
The fact that many-indeed in some cases-graduates fail to pass the relevant Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) is ample evidence of low standards. The level set for graduation should be the same as the board exam. Please read that sentence again. To me it's self-evident, but here it is simply not the case. Otherwise, why do so few move seamlessly from one to the other? Why are students recommended to attend review schools (more accurately called 'catching up schools') if the students are of sufficient level to graduate? 
The problem is that the colleges are the sole arbiters of the achievements of the students, with no external assessment or scrutiny. Some teachers even tell me they are put under pressure to raise a mark a little to push a student over an already low passing line. 
One proposal I have, which will at least expose the gap between the level of graduation and the requirement for board passing is to make the distinction transparent. Instead of the existing banners outside schools extolling the achievement of a few individuals (no doubt well deserved) let the schools publish information in the following form. 
Subject  Number Enrolled  Number (%) Graduating  Number (%) of Enrollees Passing the LET
If this is too complex for a school gate banner, let it be published in this newspaper, free of charge (I hope the editor can agree!), or in a City Council produced report. 
It will at least ensure that parents and prospective students know how likely it is that their hard earned case and the student’s efforts will be rewarded with a positive result. Colleges are sometimes accused of being worthless diploma mills. It is up to the colleges to show this is not the case. 
If the colleges in the city cannot routinely achieve the desired level for their students, it does not mean their work is worthless. As a basis for continuing study beyond high school, they could have merit, providing a platform for further study to professional level, although two years rather than four years should be ample for this. What they should cease to do, is to enroll students with a promise of a professional career, when this promise cannot be fulfilled for the majority. 
At least, publishing the figures, as proposed, alone would enable parents and students to judge in advance. 
All of this brings me back to the urgent need for a State College, with national standards, and importantly, subsidized fees for people in San Carlos. 
If cities such as Kabankalan and Guihulngan can achieve this, why not San Carlos? If we fail to act, Calatrava might well be the next.