Fix, Not Flip, K-12

By Herman M. Lagon

Anyone who’s ever taught in a public high school—where ceiling fans groan louder than the students—knows how tough Philippine education can be. So when talk of ditching K–12 resurfaces, it is worth asking: are we solving the problem or just repainting a crumbling wall? Reform is necessary. But backtracking is not progress.

Launched in 2012, K–12 was meant to align us with global standards. It added two years to basic education to better prepare students for college, jobs, or life. We were one of the last holdouts worldwide with only ten years of basic education then. The reform was not perfect, but it was necessary. What is broken is not the idea—it is the execution.

Critics have real concerns. SHS did not fully deliver. Only about 20% of its graduates went straight to work, said a 2020 PIDS study. Employers still prefer college graduates, and many tech-voc tracks lack proper tools, trainers, or industry ties. Promising a car does not work when you only hand over the steering wheel.

Yet SHS remains a bridge for many. It helps students discover their paths—academic or tech-based. A student in Barotac Nuevo learned welding, earned TESDA certification, and now juggles work and night school. These doors did not exist under the old system.

Globally, K–12 helped level the playing field. Pre-reform, our high school graduates needed bridging courses abroad. Today, some can compete for international slots straight from SHS—at least in schools with good programs. Yes, not all are there yet. Some schools still lack facilities, trained teachers, or international-readiness. But we are closer than before. Reverting to K–10 would only widen the gap again.

And it is not cheap or easy to undo. Scrapping K–12 means massive overhauls—curriculum rewrites, teacher reshuffles, retraining, textbook changes, logistical resets. It would take years, cost billions, and confuse everyone. It is not a tweak—it is a full-blown quake.

Meanwhile, real issues persist. Functional illiteracy is rising. Teacher assignments do not match expertise. The trifocal system (DepEd, CHED, TESDA) lacks synergy. Promotion systems are outdated. Add to that: students’ mental health struggles, bullying, lack of equipment and labs, poor internet in rural areas, absence of an edtech mindset, and stunting. These are the cracks we must seal. K–12 did not cause them—but it can help solve them, if done right.

Thankfully, DepEd is moving. A revised curriculum set for 2025 will reduce core subjects from 15 to 5, focusing on mastery. Teachers will get new training on communication, careers, and local history. This is how systems improve—not by scrapping, but by refining.

Also: let us clear the air. Viral posts claiming K–12 will vanish by 2025? False. DepEd has debunked that. RA 10533 still stands. Flexibility may be introduced, but we are not going back to four-year high school. Do not let misinformation dictate reform.

And let us talk teachers. As Sec. Sonny Angara rightly said, no reform works without supporting the workforce. If our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and buried in paperwork, no program—not even K–12—will thrive. Reform begins with the frontliners.

K–12 was never a magic bullet. It won’t end poverty overnight or guarantee jobs. What it does is open doors—previously locked to high school grads. If those doors are still stuck, maybe it is the hinges—not the whole frame—that need fixing.

So let us ask better questions. Not, “Should we abolish K–12?” but “How do we make it work better?” Education is not something we flip like a switch. It is a long game. It needs honesty, patience, and action.

Let us support what works, confront what does not, and fix what is broken. The real measure of reform is not noise—but how well we prepare our youth for tomorrow. Dumping twelve for ten is no shortcut. It is a detour to nowhere.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.