The problems of continuity and inclusivity of education
The Department of Education (DepEd) has given the marching order for public schools to find ways for learning to continue amidst the threat and uncertainties brought about by COVID-19, while ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of all learners, teachers, and personnel. For private schools that rely primarily on tuition and other miscellaneous fees to sustain their operations, they have no other option except to reinvent themselves and resort to alternative modes of delivery in order to survive.
However, there seems to be a low buy-in to continuity of learning. In a meeting with Governor Arthur Yap and the mayors, the Department of Education reported a low enrollment turnout for school year 2020-2021 compared to the enrollment in the previous school year. For public schools, enrollment in Kindergarten-Grade 6 is only 74.39 percent; Grade 7-10 – 70.57 percent; Grade 11-12 – 95.26 percent.
The enrollment for private schools is much less inspiring. For Kindergarten-Grade 6, enrollment is only 25.72 percent; Grade 7-10 – 49.88 percent; Grade 11-12 – 36.68 percent.
If the trend continues until the opening of classes, many children will be out of school for the rest of the school year. This situation is expected to create a possible disruption in the labor market since many students will be delayed in acquiring knowledge and skills that will make them productive citizens. Due to the adverse impact of the crisis, some students may consider quitting school and may even have a hard time going back.
To address the safety issue in going back to school, DepEd and private educational institutions resorted to online learning as one of the modes of the delivery of instruction. While online learning may probably address the safety issue and facilitate continuity of learning, the downside of this mode is the inequity that results from the lack of access to technology such as problems in internet connectivity and availability of computers and gadgets. Even prior to this crisis, there was already inequity in terms of access to educational technology. Face-to-face classes levelled the playing field to a certain extent between students with access to technology and those who do not have. Under the old normal, many students still managed to excel in school even without internet access, laptops, and gadgets. Now that face-to-face classes are prohibited, the crisis widens the existing technological divide and deprives many learners with the opportunity to continue learning. The noble intention for learning to continue is hindered by the problem of inclusivity. This is the main argument against online learning which is branded as anti-poor.
Schools are well-aware of these problems. In fact, there is an ongoing dialogue and exchange of ideas among educators on how they must respond to the changing needs of learners during this crisis. Educators are cognizant of the fact that online learning is not the panacea to this disruption in education. Those with no access to technology must not surrender to the idea of simply quitting school. Even though learners may be facing today more financial, emotional, and health problems than in the past, learners are still and will ever be the center of all the efforts among educators in adapting to the new normal.
We cannot allow this crisis to stand in the way between ignorance and wisdom. There must be no end to learning. Even death gives a lesson for men to learn. – By Atty. Greg Borja Austral, CPA