What would we have gained had we not implemented the K to 12 Curriculum?

We always hear complaints regarding the appearance of K-12 by our doorsteps, and that we were forced to swallow the whole concept of adding two more years in the year of education of our younger generation without having the time to fully prepare for it. Some say this action is a bit too much for our educational system to take in, that we must have planned it out carefully before taking that giant leap. Others would even say with conviction that this is one of the biggest mistakes we as a nation has ever committed, and that we have compromised the quality of education in order to go with the international flow.

Have we really made a wrong move? Does adapting K to 12 truly a decision we did not deliberate properly?

We always hear the grievances of people, saying that the additional two years in High School does nothing more but extend the misery of students of today. They would point out that studying doesn’t really make much of a difference, and that the best knowledge is readily acquired in the field, away from the constraints of a classroom.

Others even point out the successes achieved by people who aren’t even college graduates but were eventually able to make it to their goals, so prolonging the agony of studying will not only bore the students, it would also sacrifice the time they have for play.

Furthermore, many people protest of the additional expenses brought about by the additional two-year curriculum. To study longer is to pay more, reason those who believe that the former curriculum is still the better choice for education.

But if we stuck up for something that we have always been doing, what would we have gained?

Why don’t we all take a look at our graduates who are trying their best to get hired abroad, but are limited by the fact that their competition spent more years in school than they did? What about employers who are looking for students who studied in a school compliant of the standard 12-year education and would easily overlook those aspirants who did not meet that certain parameter?

In another viewpoint, what about those parents who could not afford sending their children to college, and see K-12 as an easier route for their kids to earn money at an earlier age and help out with the family expenses?

What about those students who believe that conforming to international standards would give them better opportunities, and that learning about work-relevant knowledge during high school would actually give them a better idea of who they truly want to be in the future? What about the students who cannot decide yet what profession to take and are hoping to find out what they really want to do during the two years they would be spending in Senior High School?

Are we going to just disregard their positive acceptance of this curriculum just because we are afraid to change our ways?

We all want the things that make us feel comfortable. Indeed, the things that we are already used to before are difficult to let go especially that we are unsure of what will happen next. But in order to grow, we must always be prepared for change.

Surely, by adapting the new curriculum we are bound to learn something. It may give us success to reap, or information we may dwell on. Either way, we can only know the moment we try.

So when we took the dive towards K to 12, we are learning. Let us not take this away from people who are eager to learn.

By: Peter G. Dinglas Jr.