The Market Monitor Minding the Nation's Business
By Tracy Cabrera
BATASAN HILLS, Quezon City — Noting the four hours of applied economics featured in the K-12 curriculum, Marikina District II representative Stella Luz Quimbo is questioning the Department of Education (DepEd) about the need to include these subjects when not all students take a program related to business or economics.
During the hearing of the House committee on basic education and culture, Quimbo curiously pointed out that it appears DepEd had skipped basic economics even as she revealed that the K-12 curriculum includes four hours of applied economics.
Prior to becoming a lawmaker, the lady solon had been a professor at the University of the Philippines (UP)’s School of Economics in Diliman and on finding out about the present curriculum, she quizzed why it seems this has been implemented without proper study to ensure effectiveness.
“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,” she spelled out.
“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 added to ask.
“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 noted.
The Marikina congresswoman likewise cited that this situation is counterproductive as when she was still teaching 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 (then) 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,” she explained even as she admitted 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.
“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 asserted.
“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.”
In this view, she enthused 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 queried.
“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)?” she further asked
In response, CHEd Director Edizon Fermin replied 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. That’s so hard on Filipino families,” Quimbo concluded.