By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
A Tutorial Program Cannot Fix a System Alone
The ARAL Program Act arrives at a moment when the country can no longer pretend that learning loss is a temporary inconvenience. It is now a structural reality, visible in every national assessment and painfully familiar to teachers who face classrooms where foundational skills have eroded. By institutionalizing a national tutorial and intervention program, the law acknowledges that the system cannot simply promote learners upward and hope the gaps disappear. It is a rare admission that recovery requires deliberate, sustained work.
What the law gets right is its insistence on structure. For too long, remediation in public schools has depended on the goodwill of teachers who squeeze in tutorials between paperwork and exhaustion. ARAL attempts to replace that improvisation with a system: clear criteria for identifying struggling learners, trained tutors, essential competencies, and regular assessments. It is a recognition that learning recovery is not charity; it is a constitutional obligation.
But the law also exposes the uncomfortable truth that the education system’s weaknesses are not merely academic—they are logistical, financial, and human. Tutorials sound promising until one remembers that many schools already operate with too few teachers, too many students, and facilities that barely support regular classes. The promise of one-on-one or small-group sessions will collide with the daily reality of overcrowded rooms, limited spaces, and teachers who are already stretched thin. Without addressing these conditions, the program risks becoming another well-intentioned mandate that falters in implementation.
The inclusion of para-teachers and pre-service teachers is both practical and revealing. It acknowledges the chronic shortage of manpower, but it also raises questions about sustainability. Will the program rely on temporary labor instead of strengthening the full-time teaching force? Will compensation and training be sufficient to ensure quality? The law gestures toward capacity-building, but the real test lies in whether DepEd can deliver meaningful preparation rather than perfunctory orientation.
Where ARAL shows the most promise is in its recognition that learning recovery is not purely academic. By integrating social-emotional support, parental involvement, and community engagement, the law situates learning within the broader ecosystem that shapes a child’s progress. This is a welcome shift from the narrow focus on test scores. But again, the strength of the law will depend on the strength of local implementation. Schools with weak LGU support or limited digital access will struggle to meet the law’s ambitions.
Will the ARAL Program improve education? It can—but only if it is treated as part of a larger commitment to equity. Tutorials can help children catch up, but they cannot compensate for the deeper inequalities that define the system. The law’s success will depend on whether the government invests in the people who will carry it out, prioritizes the most disadvantaged learners, and resists the temptation to declare victory after the first rollout. ARAL is a necessary intervention, but it is not the cure. It is a reminder that recovery is possible only if the country confronts the inequities that made such a law necessary in the first place.