Makabayan in the Philippine Basic Education Curriculum: Problems and Prospect for Reforming Student Learning in the Philippines

MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM

Problems and Prospect for Reforming Student Learning in the Philippines Abstract. The Philippines’ Department of Education undertook a curriculum reform for basic education with the goal of improving student learning to meet the more complex demands of Philippine society amidst globalization. The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum has three key reform themes: (a) the articulation of more complex and higher level learning goals, (b) the streamlining and integration of learning areas in the curriculum, and (c) the use of creative and innovative teaching approaches to improve student learning. These themes are discussed in the case of Makabayan – a new learning area that integrates several subjects with the goal of helping each Filipino student to develop a healthy personal and national identity. The problems in realizing the curriculum aims are discussed, focussing on the difficulties in fully articulating the ideal curricular elements, constraints in the implementation, and the weak conceptualization of the learning reform in the context of Philippine education. 1. INTRODUCTION It is generally acknowledged that a curriculum needs to be updated regularly, not only to incorporate new knowledge but also to adapt to changing environmental, social, technological and global contexts. The Philippines follows the same pattern of curriculum development and reform practices like most other countries. In 2002, the Philippines’ Department of Education (DepEd) undertook a grand curricular reform effort, which resulted in the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (or BEC). But unlike curriculum reforms in other countries which involve a slow process, the BEC was implemented rather fast. The DepEd Order No. 25 (s. 2002) on the implementation of the BEC states that studies on the previous curriculum began within the DepEd in 1986, and more explicit consultations with other stakeholders began in 1995. However, the formal curriculum reform process was initiated around March 2001. The BEC was implemented nationwide in June 2002 in all public primary and secondary schools in the country, 15 months after the curriculum reform process began. The BEC is still being implemented up to the present. This paper explores the BEC reform as a case of an official educational reform that aims to improve student learning by focusing on the emergent learning area in the curriculum that is referred to as Makabayan. In the first section of the paper, the foundations and features of the BEC are discussed. The second section proceeds to detail the reforms embedded within the new learning area of Makabayan and describes how this new curricular feature was explicated and implemented in various levels of the educational bureaucracy. The concluding sections attempts to summarize some of the issues that arise in this particular attempt to reform learning in the Philippine basic education sector. 2 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA 2. THE 2002 BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM REFORM 2.1 The Foundations for the Curriculum Reform Not much is documented about the curriculum development process for the BEC.2 However, the documents published by the DepEd (2002a & 2002b) on the BEC clearly indicate that the most central theme in the curriculum reform process is the need to improve the quality of learning by being creative and innovative in how the educational processes are designed and delivered. The main push for the desire to improve the quality of learning is the need to be relevant and responsive to the changing global and local environments, particularly to the explosion of knowledge in these contexts. The BEC document articulated this aim as follows: “We have to educate our Filipino learners to filter information critically, seek credible sources of knowledge, and use data and facts creatively so that they can survive, overcome poverty, raise their personal and national self-esteem, and realize a gracious life in our risky new world” (p. 4). The BEC document further articulates the need to empower Filipino learners for lifelong learning as this would allow them best confront the challenges posed by the changing social forces: “Filipino learners need … to be competent in learning how to learn anywhere even when they are left to themselves” (p. 4). However, external and internal evaluations of the national curriculum for basic education prior to 2002 consistently indicate that the national curriculum is inadequate for developing these high level learning competencies among children. Two key problems have been noted about the previous national curriculum. First, the curriculum seems to be overcrowded. The Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER, 2000) noted that there are too many subjects within the curriculum and too many topics, competencies, and skills that need to be covered in each of the subjects. This overcrowding of the curriculum tends to emphasize the need to cover the wide range of subject matter over the need to process the subject matter more deeply (Bago, 2001), thus hindering the development of higher level thinking skills and of lifelong learning competencies. Second, the curriculum adopts a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Indeed, the curriculum is homogeneous not only in terms of content, but also in terms of process, which limits the relevance of the curriculum to the diverse types of Filipino learners and to the diverse contexts of these learners (Philippine Human Development Network, 2000). 2.2 The Themes of the Curriculum Reform In consideration of the perceived problems of the previous national curriculum and the newly espoused learning goals for the BEC, three very strong themes are found in the philosophy and design of the BEC: (a) the development of higher and more complex learning competencies among Filipino learners, (b) the streamlining of the curriculum and integration of learning areas, and (c) the use of creative and innovative teaching approaches. These three themes are briefly discussed in the following sections. MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 3 The learning goals defined in the BEC clearly go beyond the acquisition of a specified set of knowledge and skills. In the section on “Philosophy of the 2002 Curriculum” (DepEd, 2002a), the learning goals of the BEC are defined as follows: “The ideal Filipino learner in our rapidly changing world is one who is empowered for lifelong learning, is an active maker of meaning, and can learn whatever s/he needs to know in any context. Such an empowered learner is competent in learning how to learn and has life skills so that s/he becomes a self-developed person who is makabayan (patriotic), makatao (mindful of humanity), makakalikasan (respectful of nature), and maka-Diyos (godly)” (p. 8). The learning goals defined in this ideal can be classified in the range of metalearning and metacognitive skills that cut across the different domains of learning. More important, the learning goals have a strong affective and value component; thus, the cognitive skills are supposed to be guided by appropriate beliefs and values that are deemed important by Philippine society. The connection between the higher learning goals and values is made explicit in the following statement, “It is learning how and not just what, in order that learners do the work themselves and thus have an experience of genuine democracy, where people have not only rights but also responsibilities” (p. 9). The second theme emphasizes the need to streamline the curriculum to allow students to focus their efforts at developing the core learning competencies with sufficient depth and complexity. Thus, the BEC has restructured the study areas from eight subjects to five learning areas. The change in nomenclature from “subject” to “learning areas” also reflects the new emphasis on the learner and the learning processes, rather than subject content. These five learning areas are: Filipino language, English Language, Science, Mathematics, and Makabayan (which will be discussed later). The reduced number of learning areas allows for the increase in time allotment for each area, with the goal of giving students more time to develop the desired competencies. The BEC also emphasizes the integration of learning competencies across learning areas, further maximizing the opportunities to strengthen learning. The third theme highlights the need for more innovate and creative pedagogies for enabling students to attain the complex learning goals. Although the document refrains from directly referring to cognitive constructivism, much of the details of the teaching-learning processes advocated in the BEC are clear articulations of constructivism. For example, the document defines the learner as “an active maker of meaning” (p. 8), and “active constructors of knowledge” (p. 9), whose knowledge is contextualized in his/her experiences (pp. 8-9). The document also redefines the elements of the teaching-learning processes in ways that align with the constructivist and other post-behaviorist and post-structuralist approaches to education. The BEC advocates stronger interactions among students, teachers, instructional materials, and learning technologies. It encourages multidisciplinary approaches, as well as, increasing opportunities of contextualizing knowledge and skills, drawing from the students’ personal, community, socio-cultural experiences to make the learning process more meaningful and relevant (pp. 10-11). One of the most critical revisions in this curriculum is in how the teacher is recast: 4 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA “The ideal teacher…is not the authoritarian instructor but the trustworthy facilitator or manager of the learning process. She is not somebody on whom learners always lean but somebody who gradually rids them of the tendency to lean. She enables the learners to become active constructors of knowledge and not passive recipients of information. The ideal teacher helps student to learn not primarily answers but how to reflect on, characterize and discuss problems, and how, on their own initiative, they can form or find valid answers” (p. 9). The BEC document calls on teachers to innovate and be creative in their teaching so that they may develop the most appropriate means to help the diverse types of learners attain the goals of the BEC. This summons for innovation acknowledges the need for teachers to be curriculum makers, as they need to contextualize the national curriculum in ways that are most appropriate for their students. This implicit empowerment of teachers as curriculum makers is unprecedented in the history of Philippine formal education. 2.3 Some Comments on the Curriculum Reform The documentation on the BEC indicates that the curriculum reformers were appropriating the contemporary global discourses on the need to focus on student learning, on lifelong learning, and the attainment of learning competencies that are relevant for global and local needs (c.f., Delors, 1996; Haw & Hughes, 1998; and other discourses on the changing character of education amidst globalization). The BEC explicitly emphasizes the need for Filipino learners to be competitive in the knowledge society and the borderless global economy. This thrust has been criticized by some sectors of the education community on ideological grounds. For example, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers decried that the new curriculum “will sacrifice the education of the youth, who will become cheap laborers in the world market instead of productive Filipinos with a strong sense of history, culture, arts and all-around skills” (San Andres, 2002; see also Arao, 2002). As noted earlier, the BEC also appropriates various contemporary educational philosophies, notably cognitive constructivism, with its emphasis on the role of the learner in active knowledge construction and on pedagogical approaches that support the knowledge construction processes. There are also references to themes of multicultural education, problem-based learning, teaching for multiple intelligences, and other popular contemporary discourses in education. If we consider the educational paradigm being espoused in the BEC, we can consider this curriculum reform effort as truly radical as it proposes a major paradigm shift in the basic education curriculum and related processes. Indeed, some of the theoretical elements articulated in the curriculum reform involve beliefs, practices, and ideals that run counter to the entrenched culture of Philippine formal education. Previous analysis of the elementary education curriculum (Bernardo, Reyes, & Limjap, 2002), for example, has revealed that the learning goals expressed in the Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) tend to be very domain-specific knowledge, particularly of the low-level (declarative and procedural) types. The previous curriculum focused largely on low-level thinking skills and did not encourage integration of competencies across subjects or within subjects. A similar MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 5 trend has been observed in studies of teachers’ lesson planning and classroom questioning practices (Bernardo, Prudente, & Limjap, 2003; Bernardo, Limjap, Prudente, & Roleda, 2005) and of elementary and high school textbooks (Bernardo, 2000). Given the prevailing curricular and pedagogical context in Philippine basic education, the shifts being proposed in the BEC can be considered truly radical. Whether the theoretical appropriations in the paradigm shift of the BEC converge in a coherent curriculum framework should also be subject to more careful analysis. A study of the learning goals in Philippine elementary education has indicated that there are gaps in the alignment of the broad curricular goals articulated in previous broad policy documents and the more specific operational curricular goals in curriculum documents that are used by the teachers (Bernardo et al., 2002). In this regard, attention must be paid to how the theoretical prescriptions come to be contextualized as the curriculum is implemented in various schools. In the next section, these concerns are discussed in the context of one of the new learning areas in the BEC – the Makabayan. 3. THE MAKABAYAN LEARNING AREA 3.1 Articulating the Reform Themes in a New Learning Area The most important themes in the BEC reform are highlighted in the new learning area defined in the BEC – the Pagkabamakabayan (love of country) or Makabayan (patriotic) for short. The BEC document declares that “(a)mong the learning areas [Makabayan] will be the most experiential, interactive, interdisciplinary, and valueladen” (p. 10). The BEC document articulates the nature of this new learning area in rather colorful language as follows: “Love of country serves as the unifying principle for the diverse values in the fifth learning area… Love of country…serves as the highlight that radiates the rainbow-like diversity of values in this learning area. As a practice environment, Makabayan will cultivate in the learner a healthy personal and national self-concept, which includes adequate understanding of Philippine history and genuine appreciation of our local cultures, crafts, arts, music, and games. Makabayan will promote a constructive or healthy patriotism, which is neither hostile nor isolationist toward other nations but appreciative of global interdependence” (pp. 10-11). In concrete terms, the learning competencies and values defined in this learning area are actually the same core competencies and values in several subjects in the old curriculum: Social Studies, Home Economic/Technology and Livelihood Education, Physical Education, Music and Arts, and Values Education. Thus we can see a rather ambitious attempt at curricular integration. This integration of competencies and values is made possible with the introduction of a unifying theme, which is the development of “a healthy personal and national identity” and a “constructive and healthy patriotism.” Thus the competencies and values in the old subjects are to be reconceived in relation to a higher level, over-arching goal. The learning competencies that were the goals in the previous subjects need to be 6 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA processed in more complex ways by the students as they aim to develop the noble long term objectives of the integrated learning area. Therefore, more than in any of the other learning areas, Makabayan embodies the two important themes of the BEC reform: the articulation of higher and more complex learning goals and the streamlining and integration of learning areas. In line with these two characteristics of the Makabayan learning area, the BEC document also expresses the need for significant changes in the how Makabayan should be taught. The BEC document states this as follows: “Ideally,…Makabayan entails the adoption of modes of integrative teaching which will enable the learner to personally process and synthesize a wide range of skills and values (cultural, aesthetic, athletic, vocational politico-economic, and ethical)… Schools are allowed to design and contextualize the implementation of Makabayan. A substantial integration of competencies and topics can be done in this learning area…” (p. 22). The document sends a clear message that schools and teachers would be given flexibility in designing the teaching-learning environments that would best allow students to attain the complex objectives of the new learning area. This is in sharp contrast to the common practice of providing teachers with very detailed teachers’ guides on how to implement lessons in the curriculum. 3.2 Early Criticisms and Resistance Soon after the first drafts of the concept paper on the Makabayan learning area were distributed for consultation with the different sectors of the basic education hierarchy, the proposal was subject to various negative commentaries ranging from strong skepticism to rather harsh criticisms. The skepticism came from teachers and curriculum experts who were concerned about whether a meaningful and coherent integration can be achieved given the varied range of competencies and values covered in the previous subjects. Previous research has found that there is no proper framework that defines the inclusion and organization of the various learning competencies and topics in social studies (Diaz, 2000; Hornedo, 2000), physical education, health, music and arts (Sta. Maria, 2000), technology and home economic subjects (Lazo, 2000; Miralao, 2000). More specific concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness of the proposed integration of competencies in helping students actually develop the desired knowledge and values related to patriotism (Mendoza & Nakayama, 2003). Such observations create skepticism regarding the ability of the curriculum reformers to meaningfully integrate the learning competencies across these varied subject areas. The harsh criticism came mainly from teachers from the affected subject areas. One form of criticism was based on the notion that the time allotment would be lessened for some of the subject areas to be subsumed under Makabayan. The teachers asserted that this would result in not giving enough time and emphasis in the development of the different competencies that were covered in the different subject areas (Araya, 2002; San Andres, 2002). A related concern was that the reduction of the time allotment for some of the subject areas would mean a reduction in the workload, and also the compensation and benefits of the affected teachers. MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 7 As the proposal was not yet very detailed in the early stages, there were also strong apprehensions that the proposal would mean that some teachers would lose their jobs as their subject areas would not longer be taught (and the corresponding teaching positions would be declared redundant). But the teachers from this sector were assured that their expertise would still be needed as the complex set of learning goals will still require teachers to handle learning activities addressing the different competencies from the different subjects. This assurance was later expressed in the Executive Summary of the BEC document explicitly declared: “No teacher will be made redundant and none will be underloaded or overloaded in the implementation of the restructured curriculum” (p. iii). 3.3 Dilution of a Key Reform Theme Unfortunately, the response to the various criticisms required that some degree of separation be maintained among the various subject areas that were supposed to be integrated. In the later drafts of the BEC, it became apparent that the integration of the different subject areas under Makabayan was not going to be as drastic or extensive as originally conceived. The BEC document states: “In light of the diversity of disciplines within Makabayan, each discipline is provided initially its own weekly time allotment from Grade 4 to Fourth Year in order to ensure that every core competencies that, in the initial years of the implementation of Makabayan, can not be taken up in integrated units of learning tasks” (pp. 22-23). To alleviate the concerns of the teachers of the different subject subsumed under Makabayan, the different subjects were simply maintained but these were now clustered under the superordinate learning area of Makabayan. Makabayan became a mere “heading” for the old subject areas. Consider the pertinent curricular prescriptions for Grades 6. Makabayan for Grade 6 students comprises of the following three subjects with specified weekly time allotment: (a) 200 minutes of Sibika at Kultura (Civics and Culture), (b) 200 minutes of Teknolohiya, Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (TEPP; Technology, Home Economics and Livelihood Education), and (c) 200 minutes of Musika, Sining, Edukasyong Pangkatawan at Pangkalusugan (MSEPP; Music, Arts, Physical and Health Education). For each year level in high school, Makabayan comprises of the following four subjects with specified weekly time allotment: (a) 240 minutes of Araling Panlipunan (AP; Social Studies), (b) 240 minutes of TEPP, (c) 240 minutes of MSEPP, and (d) 60 minutes of Edukasyon sa Pagpapahalaga (EPP; Values Education). The BEC document further suggests that the 240 minutes for MSEPP be divided as 60 minutes each for Musika (Music), Sining (Arts), Edukasyong Pangkatawan (Physical Education) and Pangkalusugan (Health). Thus, although Grade 6 students are supposed to have 600 minutes a week of Makabayan, they actually have 200 minutes each for three different subjects. Similarly, high school students are supposed to have 780 minutes a week of Makabayan, but they actually have three subjects with 240 minutes each and another with 60 minutes. (Data on time allotments are taken from DepEd, 2002a, pp. 24-25). 8 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA The separation of the subjects under Makabayan is further demonstrated in the rating system for the Makabayan learning area (DepEd, 2003). In the first three years of high school, Makabayan has 3.7 unit credits. The 3.7 is actually separately distributed as follows: (a) 1 unit credit for AP, (b) 1.2 for TEPP, (c) 1.2 for MSEPP, and (d) 0.3 for EPP. The students’ grades for Makabayan are supposed to be computed using a weighted average scheme, with the weights roughly corresponding to the unit credits for each subject area. Thus, each student gets a separate grade for each of the four subject areas, and these are reflected in the student’s report card. But there is an “integrated” Makabayan grade is computed by giving different weights for each subject grade. A student’s grade in AP contributes 27% to the Makabayan grade; the grades in TEPP and in MSEPP each contribute 32.5%; and the remaining 8% comes from the grade in EPP. In view of how the students’ learning times are allotted and how their grades are to be computed, it is very clear that there is no actual structure or process that has been specified to articulate the integration of the competencies from various subject areas with the view of developing students’ health personal and national identities. The dilution of the key reform theme of integration is expressed so clearly in the attempt to string together the distinct subject areas into a meaningless acronym: “The disciplines within Makabayan can be represented by the acronym SIKAP, where S stands for Sibika, Sining; I for Information (and Communication Technology); K for Kultuta; AP for Araling Panlipunan, Pagpapahalaga, Pangkatawan, Pangkalususgan, Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan” (p. 23).” 3.4 Reasserting the Key Reform Themes on Teaching The proponents of the BEC assert that the integration of the subjects and competencies in Makabayan is supposed to be realized in the approach to instruction, even as the organizational and content features of the subject are not actually very different from the previous “non-integrated” curriculum. According to Cruz (2002), the content and approach of the BEC is not radically different from the old curriculum, but the BEC’s demands of the teachers are clearly different. For Makabayan, the teachers are expected to go beyond teaching for their specific subject areas. For example, the music teacher is supposed to integrate concepts and competencies from arts, health and physical education, technology and livelihood education, social studies, and even values education (DepEd, 2002a, pp. 28-30). Various types of integrative teaching strategies are suggested, including thematic teaching, content-based instruction, focusing inquiry, and generic competency model (DepEd, 2002a, pp. 30-34). Teachers are even encouraged to innovate, explore, and experiment with different teaching-learning approaches to better achieve the goals of integration (see e.g., Cruz, 2005). The guidelines for the implementation of the BEC (DepEd, 2002c) indicate that the teachers of the different subjects under Makabayan are supposed to work together to ensure the integration of learning competencies across the subjects. The guidelines actually specify that a coordinator for Makabayan shall be designated to oversee the various activities related to Makabayan, particularly the colaboration MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 9 among Makabayan teachers. Beyond these general directives, the school administrators and the Makabayan teachers are actually being empowered to design the teaching-learning environments for the different Makabayan subjects in ways that are most appropriate for their schools and students. This empowerment is in line with another key reform themes: the creative and innovative use of varied teaching approaches to help students attain the higher curricular learning goals. 3.5 The Second Round of Criticisms As the implementation of the BEC became imminent, and preparations for the implementation began taking place, a second round of criticims were expressed. The teachers of the subjects that would be subsumed by Makabayan were said to have aired “a litany of complaints” (Araya, 2002). Teachers complained about more demanding work and longer work hours for the same pay. They also complained about having to integrate concepts from subjects of which they had no expertise, and that there was not sufficient time or training provided to prepare them to do the required planning and preparation for integrated teaching. There were very practical complaints about the lack of materials to attain the desired learning competencies and values in the Makabayan curriculum. Some teachers had a specific concern on the language of the instructional materials in some of the Makabayan subjects. For example, the technology and livelihood education was taught in English and using English language materials. The course that is now subsumed in Makabayan has to be taught in Filipino and using Filipino language materials that are not yet available. Many of these concerns were also raised within the forums organized by the DepEd to assess the early implementation of the BEC (DepEd, 2002b), and have been addressed and are continuously being addressed by the DepEd. However, more fundamental problems have been noted by curriculum experts and other scholars. While the Makabayan curriculum has articulated very lofty goals for development of healthy personal and national identities among our students, and that the design of the curriculum empowers teachers to be flexible in how they integrate the competencies in the different Makabayan subjects towards these goals, these curricular articulations have not been fleshed out in sufficient detail. Many of the other curricular documents which are used by the teachers to prepare their day-to-day lessons have not been revised. For example, the Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) and the Philippine Secondary Schools Learning Competencies (PSSLC) which specify the scope and sequence of topics and competencies to be covered by teachers every week have not been changed. Given that many of the immediate inputs to the curriculum that teachers have access to (e.g., scope and sequence, textbooks, teaching materials, assessment instruments, etc.) have not been changed, it is not clear how the integration of competencies in Makabayan would be implemented by different Makabayan teachers. Given that the schools and teachers did not have a lot of time and resources to adequately prepare for the implementation of this integrated learning area, it is not clear how the integration of the competencies and how integrative teaching would be concretized in the various Makabayan classrooms. It is very 10 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA likely that in many classrooms, inertia would set in, the status quo would be maintained, with no actual streamlining or integration of subject area competencies being implemented. Some curriculum experts even feared that a significant and useful concept like “curriculum integration” might gain a bad reputation if it is implemented inappropriately and/or without proper preparation. Another problem noted by scholars and curriculum experts is that there is no coherent framework articulated for integrating the various curricular elements in the Makabayan learning area. Conceptually, the development of a healthy personal and national identity in the context of globalization is a potentially viable integrating framework. But the framework needs to be fleshed out in a way that clearly shows how the various competencies in the different subjects can be meaningfully integrated within this framework. This fleshing out will require rethinking the very topics and competencies covered in the subjects under Makabayan, streamlining these and retaining only those that can be effectively and meaningfully used by teachers in helping student attain the goals of the learning area. The streamlining of curricular elements at this most operational level has not been done. Thus, teachers are still required to cover all the topics and competencies defined in the previous curriculum, whether or not they can be meaningfully linked to the Makabayan goals. It seems that there are still gaps in how the integration as conceptualized in the BEC document are supposed be implemented in the actual classroom lessons that teachers will develop, and these gaps will remain as long as the subject areas are kept separated, and the specific conceptual forms of integration are left undefined. A more radical and extensive reform of the Makabayan curriculum seems to be required to attain the goals of the course, but the realization of such a reform seems to have been hampered by constraints within the formal basic education system. A Makabayan teacher was recently asked how the implementation of the new learning area was going in their school. She replied, “Makabayan? Wala naman nagbago. Ginagawa pa rin namin yun dati.” Translated literally, “Makabayan? Nothing has changed. We still do what we did before the curriculum reform.” 4. CURRICULUM CHANGE: CONSTRAINTS IN THE CONTEXT 4.1 Summarizing the Intended vs. the Actual Reform The Philippines’ Department of Education undertook a much needed and well intentioned curriculum reform when it implemented the 2002 BEC. The reform policy document indicates how the various curricular reforms are intended to improve student learning. But as shown in the implementation of the new learning area, Makabayan, these intentions may not be realized at all. As was articulated in the Makabayan learning area, the BEC reform focused on three important themes: (a) setting higher and more complex learning goals, (b) streamlining and integrating the learning areas, and (c) employing more creative and innovative teaching approaches, including integrative teaching. In many different ways, these themes were diluted in form, substance, and implementation. MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 11 In Makabayan, the complex learning objectives were well articulated in the main documents, but were not sufficiently expressed in all curriculum materials. Most of the curricular materials that teachers had immediate access to have not been changed. Thus, the complex cognitive and value-laden learning objectives of Makabayan were left floating, with teachers attending to the same low level contentand skills-oriented learning competencies of the subjects in the old curriculum. The streamlining and integration of different subject areas into one learning area was realized in a very superficial way. For practical purposes, the various classes remained intact and separate, with distinct learning goals, and rating systems. It did not help that the curriculum reformers left undefined how the various curricular elements (topics, competencies, textbooks, etc.) were supposed to be integrated. There was a vaguely defined framework, but this was not sufficiently articulated in the most concrete and operative curricular documents. At present, there is not much evidence of the integration, the most critical feature of the Makabayan reform. Teachers of Makabayan were very vocal about the need for them to do more work, to undertake more training, for a reform effort which they were not very enthusiastic about. At the outset they resisted possible moves of fully integrating the various subjects under Makabayan and thus were able to maintain the status quo as regards their teaching work load and arrangements. Further research and documentation will have to be done to determine to what extent the Makabayan teachers actually used the freedom and flexibility they were granted to experiment with and to explore new integrative teaching strategies. The BEC embodied an ambitious curriculum reform effort, which requires a major paradigm shift in the basic education system in the Philippines. Some of the major changes involved, (a) reconceptualizing goals in terms of learning objectives instead of subject matter content, (b) designing curriculum elements in consideration of student learning processes instead of subject matter organization, (c) redefining the roles of the teacher and the student as interactive partners in attaining curricular goals, and (d) empowering the schools and teachers to be curriculum co-makers by allowing them to flesh out the details of the curriculum reform. This radical shift in the underlying educational philosophy of the new curriculum is certainly a very positive and bold move on the part of the DepEd and is one that should be affirmed and supported by all stakeholders. But it seems that as is shown in the case of Makabayan, the DepEd was not able to fully articulate the curriculum reform that was needed amidst constraints and resistance within the basic education environment where these reforms had to be effected. What might have gone wrong? The problem might be that this radical shift seems to have been conceptualized in a vacuum. That is, the reform was not effectively conceptualized within the realities of the Philippine basic education system, and was implemented hastily, without careful consideration of how the reforms would be received by the system. 4.2 Teachers: Key Stakeholders in Curriculum Reform Changing the very nature of the goals and objectives of a curriculum requires that the various implementers of the curriculum fully understand the nature of this 12 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA change. Teachers are perhaps the most important stakeholders in any curriculum reform process. As such, they will need to develop a full appreciation of the value of redefining curricular goals and to acquire a whole set of new approaches for teaching for these new goals. This would not and could not happen by decree. This also does not happen by simply telling teachers, “this is what you should do now” and providing them short-term training courses on these new strategies. Teachers would need to go through the careful and even painful process of examining their fundamental beliefs about their profession, their subject matter, and their students. It would not be fair to say that Filipino basic education teachers are resistant to change. But it would not inaccurate to say that they have not been quick to acquire new teaching approaches even if they have been provided with opportunities and support for doing so. Research studies point to weaknesses in the preparation of Filipino teachers (see e.g., Wong-Fernandez & Reyes, 2003), but the slow change in acquiring new teaching approaches while already in service might be due to more structural features of the basic education system. A study on the effectiveness of the in-service teacher development programs of the DepEd and other educational agencies (Bernardo, Clemeña, & Prudente, 2000) suggests that the design of these programs may be flawed and that the working environment of the teachers might not be supportive of changes in the teachers’ approaches. The study indicates that there are many features of the basic education system (e.g., extensive and highly prescriptive monitoring and surveillance, non-transparent incentive systems, lack of material and organizational support from administrators) that tend to undermine teachers’ efforts to change their pedagogical approaches. If the DepEd desires that teachers significantly change their teaching practices, the DepEd should address the constraints within the system that are unsupportive of such changes. They DepEd cannot simply direct and expect teachers to change, if the system within which they operate will not encourage, support, and sustain these changes in a meaningful way. But a more fundamental concern is how to involve the teachers in the curriculum reform process, and how to make teachers fully understand the radical philosophical paradigm shifts involved in the reform being undertaken. If the DepEd fails to more meaningfully involve teachers in the reform process, they will run into problems with how the teachers will actually implement the new curriculum. The DepEd’s problem would not be those teachers who loudly criticize the curriculum reform, as they probably comprise a rather small minority of teachers. Instead, their problem would be the large majority of teachers who will try to follow and implement a revised curriculum they do not fully understand. 4.3 Full Articulation of the Revised Curriculum Elements In a way, it seems naïve that the DepEd thought that articulating the goals and elements of the curriculum reform in one major policy document would be sufficient to express all the important aspects of the reform. Aside from curricular statements at the policy level, there are many other curriculum-related documents that operate at various levels of the educational process. These documents (e.g., PELC, PSSLC, MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 13 division- and district-level curriculum and lesson plan guides) are very detailed and have been entrenched in the practices of many schools and teachers. These more detailed curricular articulations actually determine how the curriculum is given life in classrooms in different parts of the country. That these documents were not addressed during the curriculum reform process and prior to the implementation of the BEC is another example of the weak conceptualization of the reform. In hindsight, the reform process should have produced a extensive battery of documents that fully flesh out the higher level learning goals, the integration of competencies and values, and the innovative and creative teaching strategies in the integrated Makabayan curriculum. This set of detailed documents would provide the teachers and educational administrators at the various levels of the bureaucracy a very lucid articulation of what the new learning area is and how it should be. The purpose of making such detailed articulations available is not to prescribe to teachers how they should teach the subject (which would run counter to another important theme of the curricular reform), but to give them better information to process for purposes of understanding and learning about the new Makabayan learning area. It is hard to imagine how these full and detailed articulations of the Makabayan curriculum reform could have been done by the DepEd in the absence of a clear integrating framework, and with the constraint of having to keep the various subject areas separate. But again in hindsight, it might have been possible to do so if the new curriculum, particular the new learning area of Makabayan, was not implemented to quickly, and if more time was given to fully articulating the framework and elements of the curriculum reform, helping prepare the teachers to implement the curriculum, and developing the materials to support the curriculum. 4.4 Centralized Reform Efforts The highly centralized curriculum reform process might be one factor contributing to its weak conceptualization. Related research (Bernardo & Garcia, 2006) has raised concerns about the top-down approach adopted by the DepEd in its educational reform efforts. The study noted that many of the reform initiatives that come from the top of the educational hierarchy might be inappropriate and unresponsive to the problems encountered by schools in very diverse conditions and contexts. Problems were also noted in the implementation and monitoring at the lower levels of the educational hierarchy (e.g., incorrect transmission of the programs that result in the dilution of the interventions downstream). The BEC might be an exemplar of such a problematic top-down reform initiative of the DepEd. The weaknesses of a top-down approach were probably exacerbated by the very hasty implementation of the revised curriculum. Indeed, the decision to hastily implement the curriculum might yet be another exemplar of the problems with a highly centralized decision-making process. The decision to implement the curriculum only within a few months after it was completed indicates that the decision makers were not very mindful of the difficulties in effectively implementing such a reform in the diverse contexts of different schools in different parts of the country. 14 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA Some educational scholars who are optimistic about the implementation of the Makabayan learning area point the opportunities for moving the curriculum design process from the center to the periphery, so to speak. Cruz (2005) proposed several guiding principles for the teaching of Makabayan; the first two principles are: First, Makabayan is a work-in-progress, not a completed work. Because each high school holds…regular sessions among its Makabayan teachers where continuous integration of lessons takes place, there is no single Makabayan curriculum completely applicable to all schools. Strictly speaking, there is no Makabayan, but there are Makabayans. There can also be no fixed list of lessons and competencies, because each school designs Makabayan according to the changing needs of its students and the community to which it belongs. Second, Makabayan is a work-in-progress from below, not from above. Because no human being can possibly understand all the aspects of Makabayan…, no one in the Central Office of the Department of Education can dictate what the individual schools need to do. Just to take a simple example, take an agricultural high school in a place where there is no electricity and where people usually eat only one meal a day. How can someone in Metro Manila, used to computers connected to the internet, figure out what competencies students in that school must have in order to find a job? The content of Makabayan has to come from the schools themselves, not from any central office. The “open-ended” quality of the Makabayan learning areas lets schools and teachers create the curriculum at their level, free from the prescriptions and scrutiny of the DepEd central office. But this might be an opportunity that schools and teachers would rather not enjoy, or might not be prepared to face. It might be better if the schools and teachers were first asked if they agree with the basic design of the learning area and if they are willing to work in fleshing out the Makabayan curriculum within this basic design. 4.5 Prospects for Reforming Learning through the BEC The implemented version of the Makabayan learning area does not seem to be very different from the old curriculum, and as such, it is hard to be optimistic about the prospects of improving student learning with this reform. But it would not be fair to say that the BEC has failed. Although the BEC has not fully articulated and realized the themes of the curricular and learning reforms, it has, in a rather forceful way, called the attention of the educational sector to an alternative way of thinking about learning in schools, and to the role of curriculum in this process. Concepts such as articulating curricular goals in terms of higher and complex cognitive goals, integrating core competencies within multidisciplinary learning areas, thematic, integrative, problem-oriented, and inquiry-oriented teaching approaches, and empowering schools and teachers to design curriculum have now been forced into the Philippine basic education discourse. The various stakeholders of Philippine basic education will continue to make sense of such concepts and find ways to make them work within the constraints of the Philippine education system. As school improvement efforts from the ground, especially those supported by People’s Organizations and Non-Government Organizations seem to be quicker and more effective (Bernardo & Garcia, 2006), it is very likely that such efforts would co-opt MAKABAYAN IN THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM 15 and implement the same reform themes expressed in the BEC. Thus, although the BEC is not likely to directly result to improved student learning in primary and secondary schools in the country, it has provided a new vocabulary and philosophy for allowing Philippine schools to better address student learning in years to come. Allan B. I. Bernardo and Rizalyn J. Mendoza are faculty members of the College of Education, De La Salle University-Manila, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila, Philippines. Notes 1 Preparation of this paper was supported by the Bro. Arthur Peter Graves Distinguished Professorial Chair in Education awarded to the first author by De La Salle University-Manila. Email correspondence may be addressed to either author: bernardoa@dlsu.edu.ph or mendozarj_a@dlsu.edu.ph. 2 We can infer from documents published by the DepEd (2002a & 2002b) that the process was largely an internal one involving Committee on Curriculum Reform (ComCurr), which was chaired by the DepEd’s Undersecretary for Programs with various DepEd Bureau Directors, Division Chiefs, and other in-house curriculum experts as members. The ComCurr had one overall consultant, several subject area consultants, and an (external) advisory council composed of educators, researchers, curriculum experts from the private education sector. REFERENCES Arao, D. A. (2002, May). State of education and the pedagogy of subjugation. Retrieved on July 2005 from http://www.bulatlat.net/news/2-15/2-15-danny.html. Araya, A. A. (2002, June 26). DepEd’s new curriculum in for a bumpy ride. Retrieved on July 2005 from http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2002_0626_01.htm. Bago, A. (2001). Curriculum development: The Philippine experience. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University Press. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2000). Frameworks and contents of Philippine basic education textbooks: A synthesis and exposition. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 1-24). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Bernardo, A. B. I., Clemeña, R. M. S., Prudente, M. S. (2000). The contexts and practices of science and mathematics education in the Philippines: Foundations of responsive science and mathematics teacher education programs. Manila, Philippines: Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational Research and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Bernardo, A. B. I. & Garcia, J. A. S. (2006). School improvement in a centralized educational system: The case of Philippine basic education. In J. C.-K. Lee & M. Williams (Eds.), School improvement: International perspectives (pp. 227-244). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Bernardo, A. B. I., Limjap, A. S., Prudente, M. S., & Roleda, L. S. (2005). Endline study on math and science teaching for the SBTP. Manila, Philippines: Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational Research and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Bernardo, A. B. I., Prudente, M. S., & Limjap, A. A. (2003). Exploring mathematics and science teaching in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational Research and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Bernardo, A. B. I., Reyes, M. L., & Limjap, A. A. (2002). Learning goals of elementary education and their measurement: Defining the learning goals of Philippine elementary education (Final Technical Report). Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education, Third Elementary Education Project. Cruz, I. (2002). The Basic Education Curriculum in 17 easy lessons. Manila, Philippines:Anvil Press. Cruz, I. (2005). Makabayan. Retrieved on July 2005 from http://criticplaywright.blogspot.com/2005/02/ makabayan.html. 16 ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO & RIZALYN J. MENDOZA Department of Education. (2002a). The 2002 basic education curriculum. Pasig City, Philippines: DepEd. Department of Education. (2002b). 2002 basic education curriculum: A challenge to quality education. Materials of the Educators Congress. Pasig City, Philippines: DepEd. Department of Education. (2002c). The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (DepEd Order No. 43, S. 2002). Pasig City: DepEd. Department of Education. (2003). Basic education curriculum (BEC) rating system. Pasig City, Philippines: DepEd. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO. Diaz, M. (2000). A review of selected textbooks and other instructional media for Sibika at Kultura in elementary schools. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 25-46). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Haw, G., & Hughes, P. (Eds.) (1998). Education for the 21st century in the Asia-Pacific region. Canberra: Australian National Commission for UNESCO. Hornedo, F. H. (2000). A review of the DECS textbooks for social studies/science in Philippine secondary schools. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 47- 70). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Lazo, L. S. (2000). Reviewing elementary textbooks in technology and home economics. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 105-119). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Mendoza, R. & Nakayama, S. (2003). Makabayan curriculum for secondary schools in the Philippines: The Development of Citizenship. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2, 13-26. Miralao, V. A. (2000). A review of the technology and home economics textbooks and curriculum in secondary schools. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 121- 137). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Presidential Commission on Education Reform. (2000). Philippine agenda for educational reform: The PCER report. Pasig City, Philippines: PCER. Philippine Human Development Network. (2000). Philippine human development report. Quality, relevance and access in basic education. Manila, Philippines: PHDN. San Andres, E. (2002, Feb. 22). DepEd set to implement Basic Education Curriculum despite protests from teachers. Retrieved on July 2005 from http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/ f2002_0222_01.htm. Sta. Maria, F. P. (2000). A review of DECS-recommended textbooks in physical education, health and music (PEHM) for secondary level. In F. H. Hornedo, V. A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), The social and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school textbooks (pp. 71-103). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Social Science Council, Inc. Wong-Fernandez, B. & Reyes, J. A. S. (2003). A review of research studies on the pre-service teacher education system in the Philippines. Final Report submitted to the Commission on Higher Education, Technical Panel on Teacher Education, Pasig City, Philippines.