Have we lost sight of what education is for?

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘔𝘍’𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯’𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳 𝘌𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.

Education serves a fundamental purpose: to develop individuals with the knowledge, capabilities, judgment, and values necessary to lead productive and fulfilling lives while contributing to the advancement of society. This purpose justifies the enormous resources that families, communities, and governments devote to educating successive generations. It should also provide the standard against which the effectiveness of our educational system is ultimately judged.

Yet much of our attention has become concentrated on the machinery of education. We debate curricula, examinations, grading systems, graduation requirements, institutional accreditation, and professional licensing. Government agencies measure enrollment, completion, academic performance, and compliance with prescribed standards. These are necessary components of an educational system, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on whether they develop the capabilities society needs. 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭?

Consider the recurring controversies over grade inflation, the proliferation of Latin honors, and the considerable importance attached to academic rankings. Much of this discussion revolves around whether grades are becoming too generous and whether academic distinctions are losing their value. Yet a more fundamental question receives considerably less attention: what do these grades actually tell us about the capabilities students have developed?

Academic achievement deserves recognition, and credible assessment remains essential to maintaining educational standards. However, high grades and prestigious distinctions have limited meaning if they do not reliably reflect knowledge, intellectual development, sound judgment, and the capacity to apply what has been learned. An educational system can maintain demanding examinations and rigorous grading practices while inadequately preparing its graduates for the responsibilities they will eventually assume. The credibility of grades therefore depends as much on what is being assessed as on how strictly performance is evaluated.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠?

The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II), in its January 2026 final report, documented serious weaknesses throughout Philippine education. Nearly half of Grade 3 learners were reported to be reading below grade level, while difficulties in foundational learning extend into subsequent educational stages. The commission identified weaknesses in instruction, educational governance, and institutional coordination.¹ These findings raise fundamental concerns about what students actually learn as they progress through school and whether advancement from one grade level to another adequately reflects the competencies they have acquired.

At the tertiary level, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) October 2026 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 reports that nearly 70% of Philippine college graduates are employed in occupations that do not require their degrees.² This finding raises important questions about the relationship between educational preparation and the productive opportunities available to graduates. It also invites an examination of how effectively educational institutions understand and respond to the changing requirements of economic activity and society.

In its assessment of the IMF reports, the Institute of Contemporary Economics (ICE) argued that the problem must be examined from both sides. Educational institutions need to develop competencies responsive to the changing requirements of industry and society, while the productive economy must generate employment opportunities capable of utilizing those competencies. Our earlier research on 115 Philippine local economies reinforces this concern. Among 109 economies recording positive economic growth in 2025, 52 nevertheless experienced declining resident employment.³ These findings demonstrate the need to examine how educational attainment, productive capabilities, employment opportunities, and household economic welfare interact.

The underlying concern is whether Philippine education consistently develops the capabilities that individuals need and whether our economic and social institutions provide sufficient opportunities for those capabilities to be exercised. Educational attainment is an important achievement, but its contribution to national development depends substantially on what individuals have learned and what they are subsequently equipped and able to accomplish.

𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬

A recent intervention by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen offers a particularly useful case study. During his October 22, 2026 interview before the Judicial and Bar Council, Leonen questioned whether the Philippine Bar Examination should remain the dominant objective of legal education. He raised concerns about established approaches to professional qualification and questioned aspects of traditional classroom instruction, including whether these adequately develop independent critical thinking.⁴

Leonen’s intervention deserves examination beyond the immediate question of how the Bar Examination should be conducted. It challenges us to consider how lawyers are trained, what competencies law schools develop, and how professional readiness is assessed. The broader concern is whether the objectives and methods of legal education adequately reflect the responsibilities graduates will eventually assume.

The Philippine legal education system has historically placed considerable emphasis on mastering legal doctrine, interpreting statutes and jurisprudence, and preparing students for a demanding professional examination. These are legitimate requirements, but competent legal practice involves a considerably broader range of capabilities. Lawyers must analyze complex factual circumstances, evaluate evidence, prepare legal instruments, advise clients, negotiate agreements, resolve disputes, and exercise sound professional judgment. They must also understand the commercial, institutional, and human circumstances within which legal problems arise, while observing ethical responsibilities that affect individuals, organizations, and communities.

An unpublished May 2026 paper examining reform of the Philippine Bar Examination offers a useful perspective. The analysis, made available with the author’s permission, examines the limitations of examination-centered professional qualification and draws lessons from Spain and the United States.⁵ Spain’s approach combines legal education with specialized professional preparation, supervised practical training, and a final assessment of professional aptitude. The United States’ NextGen Bar Examination places greater emphasis on foundational legal concepts and practical competencies, including legal research, drafting, client counseling, negotiation, and dispute resolution.

These international developments illustrate how professional preparation and assessment can be organized around the capabilities required of practicing lawyers. They also suggest that reforming the examination itself addresses only part of the larger educational task. Law schools must develop curricula, instructional methods, and opportunities for practical experience that prepare students to exercise these capabilities. Professional qualification should consequently form part of a coherent system extending from education and training to the demonstrated ability to perform professional responsibilities.

The increasing use of artificial intelligence introduces additional requirements. Digital tools can accelerate legal research, document preparation, and information retrieval, changing how lawyers perform many traditional tasks. Legal education must therefore place greater emphasis on the judgment necessary to evaluate information, recognize errors, interpret legal consequences, and exercise professional responsibility when using these technologies. Students must develop both command of legal principles and the intellectual capacity to apply them under changing professional conditions.

Justice Leonen has also emphasized the importance of clinical legal education, through which students encounter actual legal problems and work with clients and communities under professional supervision. At the October 2026 Philippine Clinical Legal Education Program Summit, he connected practical legal training with the broader objective of expanding access to justice.⁶ This introduces another dimension to the purpose of legal education, since lawyers serve businesses, government institutions, courts, workers, families, and communities. Their competence must be understood in relation to the legal needs of those they serve, including individuals who face substantial barriers to obtaining professional assistance.

The larger question arising from Leonen’s intervention concerns the objectives of the entire system of legal education. The Bar Examination establishes standards for admission to professional practice, while law schools carry the responsibility for developing the knowledge, analytical ability, practical competencies, and professional values upon which competent practice depends. Both should be organized around a clear understanding of what society requires from its lawyers and how those requirements are evolving.

This returns us to the broader problem of educational assessment. Passing the Bar Examination establishes that a candidate has satisfied the prescribed requirements for professional admission. The more consequential measure of legal education is whether graduates possess the capabilities to practice competently, uphold professional responsibilities, and contribute meaningfully to the administration of justice. The examination and the educational system that prepares candidates for it should advance that larger objective.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The questions raised by Leonen extend across the educational system. Are engineering schools producing graduates capable of designing and implementing solutions to the country’s infrastructure and technological challenges? Are business schools developing individuals who can build competitive enterprises, organize production, and create productive employment? Are teacher education institutions preparing teachers who can consistently develop foundational literacy, numeracy, and analytical capabilities among their students? Similar questions apply to medicine, agriculture, accountancy, technical education, and the many other disciplines through which society develops its human capabilities.

The effectiveness of these institutions cannot be established principally through examination results, graduation statistics, or administrative compliance. We need to understand what graduates can actually do, how effectively they apply their education, and how their competencies contribute to economic and social development. This requires stronger relationships among educational institutions, professional organizations, employers, communities, and government, supported by systematic evidence concerning graduate competencies, employment experiences, professional performance, and changing societal requirements.

Educational institutions must also prepare individuals for circumstances that cannot be fully anticipated when curricula are designed. Technology changes, industries evolve, professions develop new methods, and societies confront new economic and institutional challenges. Education must therefore cultivate adaptability, innovation, independent judgment, and the capacity for lifelong learning alongside discipline-specific competencies. Its responsiveness to economic requirements should reinforce its broader responsibilities for intellectual development, civic participation, and individual well-being.

The productive economy must likewise be considered in assessing educational outcomes. A country cannot fully utilize educated workers without enterprises and institutions capable of employing their skills productively. Educational reform and economic development must consequently reinforce one another through improvements in the quality of human capabilities and the opportunities available to apply them. This reinforces the need for an integrated approach linking the educational system with the country’s wider development strategy.

𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The Philippines has undertaken numerous educational reforms over the decades. Curricula have been redesigned, educational pathways expanded, professional standards revised, and new administrative requirements introduced. EDCOM II’s proposed National Education and Workforce Development Plan for 2026–2035 recognizes the need for a more coordinated approach to these challenges. The essential task is to ensure that individual reforms contribute to a coherent set of educational outcomes.

This requires answering several fundamental questions. What should every Filipino be capable of accomplishing after completing basic education? What competencies should universities and technical institutions develop? What should professional qualification demonstrate, and how should educational institutions be held accountable for the capabilities their students acquire? These questions should guide the design of curricula, instructional methods, assessment systems, institutional standards, and educational investment.

Justice Leonen’s challenge to the Bar Examination illustrates how these questions can be applied to one profession. The IMF’s findings on graduate employment raise them across higher education, while EDCOM II’s assessment demonstrates their relevance from the earliest stages of learning. Even the controversies surrounding grades and Latin honors become more meaningful when examined against the capabilities that academic achievement is supposed to represent. Together, these concerns invite a broader examination of whether the various components of Philippine education are working toward a common social purpose.

The Philippine educational system must ultimately be judged by its contribution to human development: whether it equips Filipinos with the capabilities to earn productive livelihoods, exercise sound judgment, participate responsibly in society, and improve their own lives and those of others. Our schools, universities, examinations, and regulatory institutions are instruments for accomplishing that purpose. Their objectives, methods, and standards must remain organized around the people they are intended to develop and the society they are meant to serve.

If we continue to evaluate educational success principally through grades, credentials, examinations, and institutional compliance, we risk improving the machinery while leaving its ultimate performance inadequately examined. The responsibility of educational policy is to establish whether the system is developing capable individuals and enabling them to contribute meaningfully to Philippine society.

𝐖𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲.

𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬

1. Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II), 𝘛𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵: 𝘈 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴, Final Report, January 2026; findings concerning foundational learning, instructional quality, and educational governance.
2. International Monetary Fund, 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬: 𝘈𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 — 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘪𝘥 𝘜𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺: 𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘐𝘵 𝘉𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥?, October 2026, Chapter 2, p. 26, Figure 2.3; Institute of Contemporary Economics, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟨: 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬, October 2026, Section IV.3.
3. Institute of Contemporary Economics, 𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝟣𝟣𝟧 𝘗𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘌𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘎𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, September 2026.
4. Reports of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen’s October 22, 2026 Judicial and Bar Council interview, including GMA News and contemporaneous reporting on his proposals concerning Bar admission and law school instruction.
5. Unpublished paper on reforming the Philippine Bar Examination, May 2026. Used with the author’s permission. See also Spain’s Law 34/2006 on access to the legal professions and the United States National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen Bar Examination framework.
6. Supreme Court of the Philippines, 𝘚𝘊 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝟤𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘌𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮, October 19, 2026, reporting Justice Leonen’s keynote address at the October 6–8 summit.