HOUSE BILL NO. 167 - EXPLANATORY NOTE - Introduced by Rep.Rodante D.Marcoleta and Rep.Caroline L.Tanchay

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Gloria

Explains the rationale and observed challenges of the K to 12 curriculum under the Nineteenth Congress, First Regular Session, House Bill No. 167. Compares the Philippines’ formative education structure and assessment culture with models cited from UNESCO’s education pillars, Japan, Finland, and Singapore. Highlights issues such as curriculum timing, class size, English exposure, standardized testing differences, homework load, rankings/competition, and the need for a more relevant, enhanced approach for youth development and employability.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time18 min

AccessFree to download

EXPLANATORY NOTE

K to 12 education structure and UNESCO alignment

Need for evaluation and comparison with prior system

Comparisons with Japan, Finland, and Singapore

Proposed adjustments to school hours, testing, and homework

Teaching structure, assessment, and classroom practices

NINETEENTH CONGRESS # First Regular Session HOUSE BILL NO. 167 Introduced by Rep.Rodante D.Marcoleta and Rep.Caroline L.Tanchay ## EXPLANATORY NOTE The most important formative years of the youth are spent in the elementary andsecondary education.Before,it consisted of six years in the elementary level (Grades 1 to 6)and four years in high school(First year to Fourth year).Under the“K to 12curriculum”,the old high school system now covers Grades 7 to 12—where Grades 7 to10 are deemed junior high school while Grades 11 to 12 are considered senior highschool. This reform in the educational system is in line with the concept of UNESCO'sfour pillars of education which requirements are the ones being implemented across theeducational system today.Thus,the K to 12 basic curriculum now covers functionalliteracy,virtues,values education,social learning theory,social emotional learning,constructivism.career development,self-concept,attitude,ethical decision making,experiential learning and competencies.More than these components,it broadly envisionsa sound approach to college preparation,vocational and other technical skills for betteremployability after graduation. There is obviously not enough basis to check whether or not all these concepts.theories,or systems guiding K to 12 produced positive outcomes if those who wentthrough the curriculum are assessed or evaluated.However,there may even be early signsthat,the tendencies are skewed and did not achieve the goals that have been intended.While the components,dimensions,and key concepts in the implementation of the K to12 are deemed good,no valid comparison can yet be made upon graduates of the oldsystem with that of the new system whose first graduates were reaped in 2018,or onlytwo years ago. Thus,in its present form,the K to 12 curriculum has left much to be desired.Formany years,the every 10-year update of our educational system appears to have beentaken for granted—unlike Japan which will again roll out a new curriculum this year.Other problems that can seriously affect the most basic objective of knowledge absorptionmay have been overlooked.The public school system,for one,failed to maintain the idealaverage class size of 30 as practiced in Japan and Singapore,and 20 in Finland.Compared to Japan,our exposure to English goes as early as before Grade 1 or duringpre-school years.In Japan,however,such exposure starts only for fifth and sixth-graders,the emphasis being only on listening and speaking.Even the matter of average school day is only 6 hours in Japan and even less in Finland while we observe up to average of 9hours in high school alone,not to mention in elementary grades. If we must truly set the goal of the holistic development of the young towardnation building,then the case of Finland could be instructive in some respects.ThePhilippine educational system could replicate the bar set for comprehensive schoolteachers in Finland.namely.that they have a Master's degree:those who teach grades 1to 6 are specialized in pedagogy:and grades 7 to 9 teachers are specialized in the subjectsthey teach.Interestingly,children often have the same teacher for the first six years thusthe teacher gets to know the students well.While our educational system is too merit-based.this is discouraged in Finland because it adds unnecessary stress to students.Infact.there are no mandated standardized tests in Finland,apart from one exam at the endof students'senior year in high school.The same is true with Singapore that onlyadministers the Primary School Learning Examination(PSLE)at the end of Primary 6 todetermine entry into secondary school.Again,students in Finland get everything theyneed to get done in school with littie homework unlike our educational practice of toomuch homework that finds parents the ones finishing them for their children.In Finland.there are 1n0 rankings,no comparisons or competition between students.schools,orregions unlike our way of too many contests

FAQs

What period of schooling does the document describe under the old system versus K to 12?

Before K to 12, schooling is described as six years of elementary and four years in high school. Under K to 12, the old high school system covers Grades 7 to 12, with Grades 7 to 10 treated as junior high and Grades 11 to 12 as senior high.

What concerns does the document raise about whether K to 12 is producing positive outcomes?

It states there is not enough basis to check whether the concepts and systems guiding K to 12 produced positive outcomes, and notes early signs that tendencies may be skewed. It also argues that comparison with the old system is limited because the first K to 12 graduates were only reaped in 2018.

Which education practices from other countries does the document suggest the Philippines could replicate?

It points to Finland’s teacher specialization, class and assessment approach (including minimal mandated standardized tests), reduced homework, and project-based learning. It also references Singapore’s PSLE at the end of Primary 6 and reduced examination/weighted assessment for early grades, as a basis for re-orientation of the curriculum.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Gloria