Reform Not Repeal

Joint Statement of CEAP and the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Catholic Education on the Proposed Removal of Senior High School

The proposal to remove Senior High School (SHS) from the Philippine education system is not only untimely, it is dangerously shortsighted. The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 was a hard-won reform that took years of national dialogue, intersectoral consultation, research, and legislative action to bring to life. It addressed long-standing gaps in college and work readiness, and finally aligned the Philippines with ASEAN and global education frameworks. The SHS program, launched in 2016, was not an accident of policy but a product of vision: one that sought to raise our education system to meet international benchmarks and respond to the evolving needs of Filipino learners and the labor market.

Critics have raised concerns about the perceived redundancy of SHS and the financial burden it places on families. Yet instead of scrapping the program, government should expand and strengthen the SHS Voucher Program to ensure that no learner is left behind, particularly in underserved and marginalized communities. This is where the principle of public-private complementarity becomes more essential: the idea that public and private schools are not competitors, but partners in delivering quality education to young Filipinos. More than 1.2 million students currently benefit from government-funded vouchers that allow them to study in private SHS institutions. In rural and hard-to-reach areas, these partnerships fill gaps in access, relieve pressure on overcrowded public schools, and bring educational opportunities closer to communities.

Doubts about SHS graduates’ employment readiness must be addressed not by dismantling the program but by deepening partnerships with industry, aligning curriculum tracks with local labor market demands, and mandating meaningful work immersion reform in every school. These are tangible, cost-effective improvements that will yield stronger employment outcomes over time.

Others point that SHS is flawed due to curriculum overload, unqualified teachers, and implementation gaps.  But flaws in execution should not be mistaken for flaws in the framework. What is needed are Regional Centers of Excellence to mentor struggling schools, partnerships with higher education institutions to upskill SHS teachers, and a rationalized, job-relevant curriculum that aligns with both CHED requirements and 21st-century skills.

Rather than breaking what is still being built, government should commit to a full review of SHS implementation and institute reforms where necessary without sacrificing its gains. Reverting to a 10-year cycle would dismantle existing structures, waste public and private investment, and once again send Filipino students into college or the workforce underprepared.

Finally, this proposed regression undermines not just policy but promise. It threatens to unravel a vision rooted in equity, global parity, and holistic learner development. Instead of depriving learners of two transformative years, we must double down on efforts to fulfill the original promise of SHS: to equip every Filipino youth with the tools, competencies, and values needed for success in life and in nation-building. Reform, not repeal, is the only rational and just way forward.