james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 18 February 2009 Issue

---

Amidst all this talk of making English the primary medium of instruction for public schools, one has to ask whether there is real good to be gained from teaching in a language other than our own.

It is a very important question because language and education are inextricably linked. You cannot teach if you cannot be understood. And beyond that, the language of education also shapes the way you think and communicate, because language inevitably affects the types of cultural influences that you are exposed to.

I remember back in grade school how we used to have a so-called “English Rule.” On certain days or class periods, students would not be allowed speak in a language other than English. If a student is caught speaking in, say, Filipino, he would be subjected to a penalty, which differed depending on the grade school you went to (I went to two, and rival ones at that.) While these small pockets of time might not seem to have mattered in determining the way you speak, for me it did. I took the English Rule very seriously, maybe because it made you seem smarter if you could speak it well. Eventually, it became easiest for me to express myself in the language.

Then again, I was in a different sort of environment. My peers belonged to middle-class or otherwise wealthy households, many of which encouraged the children to read English books, watch English shows, and speak the English language at home. So it isn’t surprising that some of us express ourselves more fluently with a vocabulary that is not ours.

This brings me back to the summer after high school freshman year, which I spent with a couple of friends teaching underprivileged kids from a nearby slum area. Partnered with one of my classmates, I was tasked to teach basic English grammar and syntax. On the first day, I tried doing my own version of the English Rule to encourage the kids to speak the language, which I figured would make them more familiar with it.

I gave up after ten minutes. I had to switch codes every other sentence, because I couldn’t make myself understood. If you’ve ever tried teaching English to someone in Filipino, then you would know exactly how difficult this is. But sadly, this was the way it went with my teaching all summer. Looking back, I realize now that it was unreasonable for me to expect them to speak it fluently by the end. They come from a background that is different from mine.

Thus, I can only imagine how difficult it would be, even for a qualified teacher, to teach in English in some other far-flung area, like the mountains or an isolated island community. If this teacher weren’t a native, then it would be difficult enough just finding a way to communicate with her students. What more in a language that is foreign?

The first concern of education is to ensure that the knowledge can be understood, and thus imparted in a language that the student can fully understand. It is unreasonable for us to expect students to comprehend their lessons and improve their scores while struggling with their medium at the same time.

This is true even with teaching Science and Math, fields which are dominated mostly by Western dialects. Other countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Slovenia teach Math and Science in their native tongues, and they periodically rank among the world’s best countries in terms of proficiency in these subjects. We teach Math and Science in English, and yet we don’t.

All of this notwithstanding, our policy makers are still grappling with the problem of our country’s failing English proficiency. Changing the primary medium of instruction would seem to help in solving this, because students would ideally be acclimatized to an environment where English is valued as the language of progress and modernization, of intellect and the elite. This is, truly enough, the reality of our neocolonial society. You can’t get far in this country—indeed, this world—without knowing a little English.

But what escapes these policy makers are the harsh realities of education.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 4 February 2009 Issue (Page E-4)

---

In light of the need to impose educational reforms, CHED has proposed to retool the system into having five-year college courses across the board.

In this plan, the first two years at the college level will be use for “pre-university” courses, supposedly to equip students with skills that would immediately land them jobs should they forgo further specialization.

Ideally, the plan will be put in motion by next school year, amid soaring unemployment rates and the world’s biggest economic crunch since the Great Depression in 1929.

It has gotten me wondering whether the government is looking too far ahead in coming up with a solution—or if it is indeed even looking for one.

In the first place, effective educational reforms necessitate two things: a clear view of the problem, and a well-defined connection between the problem and the solution. It is this link between problem and solution that I cannot fully appreciate.

The problem with our system is not so much in the number of years, but in the caliber of the education it gives.

Right now, our educational system is a moldering mess. Curricula are not up to date, and neither are the ways with which we we educate. While the rest of the world is revolutionizing through computers, we are revolting from the lack of textbooks (which themselves are factually lacking) and classrooms without teachers. There are many students but not enough teachers. In many cases, schooling has become a formality which students undergo without truly learning anything. It is for this reason that so few of us even reach college.

At this point, should we even be talking about expanding years in college when we can barely prepare our students for it?

But say for the sake of argument that we tackle it on the level of the university itself. Ideally, the extra year creates space for more meaningful learning and specialization. Yet if we look at the structure of the policy itself, practically nothing changes.

Currently, the first year of many universities is spent on general education (to compensate for the lack of training our basic education has given) and the next three years is spent on the course itself. Under the proposed system, two years will be spent on “pre-college” courses, and the next three years for specialization. Seems like the only real change is that college students take freshman year twice.

Besides, in an age where specialization has become the key to employment, one has to doubt whether we can feasibly leave school after two years of pre-specialized education.

Before we think about expanding years in college, we should revisit our college curriculum first, and see whether we exact accountability from schools that do not deliver.

Then we have to think about whether families can handle such a change. Not so long ago, millions of Filipinos lost their educational savings by investing in faulty college plans. Nowadays, these same people are reeling from the impact of the financial crisis, which has resulted in significantly reduced incomes, if not outright unemployment. One has to wonder whether they can handle the added expense of another year of college. Indeed, one has to wonder whether they can currently handle the expenses of four years in college.

This is even worse for students who mostly depend on scholarship and financial aid. As you increase the number of years required for education, you also increase the amount of money that must be invested to ensure that a student graduates. This will make scholarships more competitive, and this means that it will be more difficult for poor yet worthy and intelligent students to have access to higher education. Yet here we are talking about how to best utilize the talent of the youth.

Granted, it is admirable that our administration is thinking of ways to make meaningful reforms to the education system. It is also good that we have begun caring about being up to par with international standards. But before we gaze outward and think of big solutions, it is necessary to introspect and discern the kind of changes we need to make first.

At least then, our government won’t seem like it’s looking for a cheap way to reduce unemployment figures.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 4 September 2008 Issue (page F-4)

---

One hot topic that seems to recur in the newspapers and among my socially-aware peers is HB 4110, known more commonly as the Reproductive Health Bill. The bill, which is national in scope, promoted information on and access to both natural and family planning methods. It also claims not to “have any bias for or against either method.” The author of the bill, Rep. Edcel Lagman, has characterized the bill as pro-life and pro-family.

Supporters of the bill commend it for promoting the exercise of freedom of choice, as well as for being a timely response to the causes underlying overpopulation and, in the long run, poverty. Opposition to the bill, on the other hand, centers on claims that it is anti-life, that it promotes a culture of promiscuity, and that sex education is best practiced at home.

In my own opinion, it is the most reasonable alternative we have at the moment.

I think it’s unfortunate that the term ‘population control’ has negative connotations. Whenever mentioned, it seems to imply that we reduce people to mere numbers or statistics, or connote unacceptable and unnatural methods of prevention. That’s why it’s hard to give bills like these a fair hearing. But I propose that we set aside our biases for just a moment.

I want to begin with an observation: people who live in poverty are basically uninformed when it comes to reproductive health. It does not help either that society deems sex as a taboo topic. These people, then as now, find out through their friends, or by trying it out themselves. It is situations like these that cause more, usually unwanted, pregnancies. These pregnancies make their already-complicated lives even more complicated.

In an ideal situation, traditional methods would be enough. People would abstain because they would know the consequences, and their values would be consistent with it. But reality isn’t like that. People’s values differ, and they don’t always know the consequences.

If we really want to help them out, then the best we can do is to inform them, and give them their options. Isn’t this what we value in a democracy? Besides, if there’s anything that should be going for this bill, it’s the fact that it does not value one method over another. This means that if society’s values are as consistent as they appear, then most people would probably just listen to their parish priest anyway.

I understand the most of the controversy stems from the notion that modern methods would be available. Apparently, making these available would constitute an attack on our values. They would also, presumably, turn us all into sex maniacs, because condoms are available at our nearest convenience stores.

I don’t know what’s more oppressive, though—that we insist on imposing one system of beliefs for all people, or that we allow these ‘threats’ to exist for the sake of giving people knowledge. That’s because I don’t believe in an absolute notion of good. Or, maybe I’m just a liberal, believing that democracy is all about giving people choices, and that the furthest government can step in is by recommending some choices over others.

It’s the same banana with the ‘culture of promiscuity’ argument. True, safe sex is not the same as responsible sex, and I’m sure adults with ten or more children would understand.

As for experimental teenagers, well, they’re going to be exposed sooner or later. The question is whether we’ll let them get there first before they know anything. Or, maybe I’m just a cynic, not believing we can expect many of us to listen to abstinence talks because the world today encourages us to find out for ourselves what’s good for us, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

In the end, it’s not just a question of values, but a question concerning the just distribution of resources. I agree, this problem must be addressed, but I’m afraid we’ll have to wait forever before we get anywhere. In the meantime, more children are being born into lives that will become more and more difficult, the more that they keep on coming.

Maybe that’s the greater oppression.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 21 August 2008 Issue (page F-4)

---

I was taking a leak before going to English class last Wednesday when I overheard two of my batchmates talking about school. They seemed rather stressed, and understandably so; it’s midterms season. I wasn’t really listening to them, but I did hear one part of the conversation that struck me. It went something like this:

“Why do we even have to take up Math, anyway? It’s not like we’ll need to factor quadratic equations when we start working!”

“Yeah nga e! It’s not like I need to balance chemical equations when I’m already in media!”

Of course, we all know that’s not the point. We study math, science and language not because we are supposed to remember every single detail. Rather, we take them as a form of mental training, and your course determines which areas you are trained in. Of course, there are some subjects whose basis for being taken up may seem questionable, but that’s disputable.

Then again, I think the query makes sense in a different way. If you boil down the reasoning behind it to its simplest form, the question simply asks, “What’s the point?”—which means that probably, the point is being missed. On one hand, perhaps it is the wrong question to ask, since factoring is obviously not the point of a college education, but on the other hand, it’s also right.

Why do we work so hard to attain degrees that will only matter when we start working—if they will matter at all? And considering how college has become something of a necessity in starting a decent career, has the system of education failed in some way?

Nowadays, it seems like there are only two kinds of people who get the jobs that they want. The first are the people who have studied and graduated abroad; the second are the people who come from prestigious local universities. For these people, college has done its part.

This leaves out everyone else who comes from lesser-known institutions, as well as those who never went to or finished college. They constitute a majority of the workforce. The sad part is, they often don’t land the jobs they should be in. You could graduate as a Science or a Business major and still end up as a minimum-wage earner.

Of course, it can be argued that a large part of what makes a person successful in a career is his or her drive and determination. There are people, after all, who go into jobs that don’t fit their course descriptions and still end up successful. College can only go so far when it comes to equipping students with the tools that they need, in a world whose demands are constantly changing. I agree.

Then again, perhaps there is a need to re-examine our approach when it comes to education.

For one thing, I’m not sure it makes sense for our colleges to go with the flow when it comes to the labor market—that’s the reason why virtually every college seems to offer a Nursing course these days. While we supply whatever job is in demand around the world, we do so at the expense of other professions, and we often end up with an oversupply.

Another area which needs re-examining is the philosophy behind education. In our country, the mindset of most people coming out of college is to land a stable job and slowly work your way up. Perhaps we need to encourage students to start out on their own, instead of focusing on just getting employed.

It can even go as far down as the amount of knowledge that is being fed to the minds of students. Is it really necessary to go through all that tedium? Perhaps curricula can be adjusted so that there’s less pressure, which might result in better learning. Interestingly enough, people who study in universities abroad often have lighter loads than the ones who study here.

Nonetheless, while we can argue about how college education should be, the more important thing is still to make the most out of it. This means different things to different people, but the important thing is to learn to be flexible and adaptable.

And that means realizing that learning goes on and on and on, even after college.