A UNORian posted on his Facebook account a very good observation as to the pending implementation of the 12-year curriculum program for the Basic Education. His opinion got varied reactions but most were that of apathy and indifference. His thought was Why does government speak of Education for all, while it plans to add more expenses? Is this for the common welfare?

Last few weeks, DepEd came out with a manifesto to increase the traditional 10- year Basic Education curriculum to 12-year curriculum. This is to improve the quality of basic education in the country. Speaking from experience, DepEd secretary, Bro. Armin hinted that the system produced better graduates for this was the system that his school is adopting. This is an American System of education where the six years (elementary) and four years (high school). They have the seven years in basic elementary and five years in high school or middle school. Shall we allow this to affect us or shall we have our own unique education system in the country. Who will benefit from this?

Updates on President Benigno Aquino III's presidency

The move will be more disadvantageous than advantageous. This will greatly affect families economically. We shall also have one year of no graduates. If we allow this to happen, this will prolong the stay of students and pupils in schools. Instead of the families looking forward for their child or children to go to college after ten years of basic education, this time they will be waiting for two more years. This would also affect them for two years later would mean adjustments in tuition fees and other payments in college.

One academician hinted that this is a brand of Elitist thinking. Only those with money and with personal interests could greatly benefit much. This is elitist in a sense that this is a thought that caters to the minds of the western world. This is to train young minds to become subservient to the western thought. I pray that instead of answering the needs of other countries, we move to answer the pressing needs of our country. Take a look at nursing. The global need suddenly went down. We have a lot of nurses crossing their fingers to get employment promised to them four or five years ago. These are students who were trained to answer the call of western employment, yet today they end up as volunteers in a third or second-class hospitals. Is this because of their 10-year curriculum? Or is this an effect of global plan?

In one of my education subjects, I was taught that "Education is to conserve and preserve the natural and human resources of the country." One reason that prompted "Big-head technocrats" to add two years to basic education was for students to master the art of speaking an alien language. The main essence is not to teach more technical subjects but was to teach them the master the foreign language. I have nothing against the study of a foreign language but we have to do it for knowledge sake and not for preparation of exportation of human resources.

A columnist once noted that "Some products of good schools are often the ones destroying nature and are corrupt." It is not only his observation but it is a clear fact that until today many corrupt politicians come from big schools. Some are even products of a 12-year basic education program. This is something to ponder upon.

It should be thought of well and Filipinos should not always think of "ganito kami sa... sana ganito rin kami sa..." So, if this system worked in some schools, we must not make it a general rule to all schools. Anyhow, one may say that since it's already 12 years, I might as well go to the school that did this first. Where is it? It's the school where the DepEd Secretary comes from.

I suggest that there should be a System change and not additional number of years. The only genuine change comes after we have totally overhauled the whole Philippine education system.

Pope John Paul II, St. Ezekiel Moreno, and Sir Faraon Lopez, pray for us.