Saturday afternoon I saw the replay of the week’s episode of Forum 2007. The episode featured senatorial candidates Joker Arroyo, Zosimo Paredes, and Aquilino Pimentel III. Panelists were Maria Ressa, Alexander Lacson, and Andres Bautista (I hope I got the two gentlemen’s names right).

I was not able to watch the show in its entirety, but I got to see the second half, where the panelists asked the candidates a question plus a followup.

I pity Joker Arroyo. Here is a great man reduced to the absurdities of his reasoning, which is pathetic and sad.

When a panelist asked why he joined Team Unity, he said that the opposition was against the Constitution because it did not condemn the supposed coup last year, that the opposition’s only aim is to impeach Gloria Arroyo. Yet he joined the administration slate, whose titular head is Gloria Arroyo, whose administration violated the Constitution several times. I can only shake my head.

Then when asked why he did not go the way that Francis Pangilinan went, he said that in times of crises, you must take a stand, there’s no room for being neutral. At least we know where Senator Arroyo stands, no? BTW, nice cheap shot, Mr. Arroyo. I wonder what Pangilinan will say about this.

And lastly, Joker Arroyo knows he made an unpopular and illogical decision, and he has to defend it again and again and again. His decision is indefensible and he knows it. He knows that the reason he gave for joing TU is a lie. As Mark Twain had said “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” Well, you get the idea.

Patricia Evangelista’s column yesterday reveals Joker’s true colors. Poor man.

And, as Willy Prilles had said,

But as apologists for the administration and the military establishment are wont to say, we are but a reflection of our times. Only that they are inside their glass house, and we are not. And so we need not take refuge in that last argument of the indefensible.

Joker Arroyo’s glass house will have to be broken.

As I was about to start writing again about education, there are two education-related topics at ABS-CBN News.

Boo Chanco wants CHED to be re-integrated with DepEd. For all the details that he had stated, they do not support his conclusion. It all boils down to leadership, not on structure. You want substandard schools shut down? It can be done even without CHED-DepEd integration. The problem is that CHED is basically hostaged by the political leadership. Add lack of political will to mix, and you have an impotent CHED.

The short term solution is to remove the chair of CHED, Carlito Puno. After all, all the problems stated by Chanco are problems of investigation and/or execution. If he can’t do the job, replace him.

Medium term solution is to strengthen the commission by making it independent and immune from political intervention.

Long term solution is to have a single, coherent (redundant, I know), rational policy on education that addresses not only the “now” but also the “tomorrow”. If it means re-integrating CHED with DepEd, or making DepEd secretary concurrent CHED Chair, or having an education czar/commission, so be it.

***

Then, Jarius Bondoc shares two stories coming from two teachers, giving testimonies to the fact that corruption exists in schools. I just want to add that those things happen in private schools, too. Commissions and the like are seemingly irresistable additions to a teacher’s paycheck.

It really is hard to maintain integrity when you are a teacher. As a former teacher in a tech/voc school with a salary that cannot even feed and house myself, the temptation of the fast buck at the expense of the students were aplenty. But I retained my sense of honor. Yet, as they say, honor will not feed your family. Again, we are back to the root of corruption – hard times. I don’t know why this government can’t seem to understand that. Telling the people to spend less on luxury is a futile effort – those who are hungry gets hungry because they cannot afford to eat, much less spend on luxury. Arroyo’s comment is at best a cruel cheap shot at the people that she believes elected her.

***

Based on the recent National Career Assessment Examinations, 700K graduating high school students are unfit to enter college. I have itemized the relevant results based on the news report:

* Most of the students scored high on the technical-vocation and entrepreneurial categories.
* Only a small percentage of the examinees are qualified to fill executive and managerial positions.
* 22,267 students who belong to families with annual incomes below P150,000, the current poverty threshold, are among the highest performers in the GSA, with Very High to Excellent scores (98-99+ percentile ranks)
* 33,444 poor students also received very high scores in the technical-vocational category.

We Pinoys are enamored on the college diploma as the saving grace of the family. In a point, this is true. After all, the high-paying jobs require at least a college diploma (though some low-paying jobs require college diploma, too). If the NCAE compels students on what track to take, many families will be heartbroken. Browse/peruse job ads online and on the newspapers, and find a job that (1) pays at least Php10,000 and (2) requires at least two years in college or a tech/voc diploma.

That would lead you to call center jobs. Again, a problem – those jobs require a good proficiency in English. And I doubt if in measuring scores in the tech/voc categories of the NCAE they included English. That is another problem.

Also, even if a student is qualified for college, he and his family might not afford it. If a family earns Php150,000 a year, rule out the best private schools (unless he can get a scholarship, and those things are limited, if not rare). Rule out student loans. Personally, letting a student finish college deep in debt is dishonorable. UP charges how much per unit? Do they still count the number of appliances to determine if a student is poor? TUP is fast catching up with UP’s tuition. PUP remains the cheapest, but it can only accommodate that much number of students.

Based on the data:

* Strengthen the tech/voc education (which is another subject worthy of a separate blog post)
* Make English a major subject
* Make sure tech/voc graduates can find employment (job generation)
* Make tech/voc education affordable
* If feasible, establish college preparatory schools
* Adopt a ladderized tertiary education with full subject credits
* Enforce strict standards for tech/voc schools

These are mish-mash of short-to-long term ideas. Please feel free to add yours.

An interesting case.

Questions:

1. Do students surrender their rights when they are at school?
2. On what grounds can the school exercise censorship? Should censorship be allowed?

I don’t know where in the space-time continuum is Bill Esposo. Maybe he was affected by the early DST imposed in the US.

His column today advises the opposition to change its campaign strategy. Fast. His thesis is that using Estrada as an emblem/flag/standard of the opposition is wrong, divisive, and drive the opposition to defeat.

Isn’t the replacement of the campaign manager a signal of a shift in strategy? Or is Esposo still thinking that JV Ejercito is still the manager (well, he is, but will be replaced by Serge Osmeña soon)?

Hasn’t he heard Serge said in an interview that the campaign will concentrate on boosting Sonia Roco and Nikki Coseteng’s rankings? That the campaign will concentrate on places where the opposition is weak?

His defense of Francis Pangilinan is noteworthy for being a non-issue. He rued the opposition’s seemingly ganging up on Pangilinan. If it is a non-issue, how come Esposo is still hitting the opposition because of that?

Anyway, his other points are logical and the opposition should pursue those talking points.

Speaking of Serge Osmeña, Babes Romualdez is happy that the debate being organized by pro-status quo businessmen will push through tomorrow, and called Osmeña Dr. No. He he.

And like every other ivory tower columnists, he looks down on a Plaza Miranda-type debate with these words:

Those who still insist on holding the debate at a public place like Plaza Miranda will just have to wait until somebody comes up with the bright idea to produce something like a Philippine Political Idol contest, where the candidates can sing and dance on stage so people can choose their Top 12 by texting or phoning in their choices. We can even throw in Boy Abunda as host to add the personality that would make the show complete.

His opinion is most probably shared by businessmen all over the country.

And his final words on the topic is plain wrong:

The opposition can continue with plans for another impeachment attempt if they so decide, but I really wish they would also realize that the country will not be able to move forward if we continue to keep dragging all the heavy baggage of the past. The time to move on has come, and hopefully the coming elections will be an opportunity for everyone to forge an even better future for this country – and this “great debate” is a step towards that direction.

Those who don’t learn their history are bound to repeat it, so goes a cliche. Move on, huh? Mr. Romualdez, tell that to those people whose relatives “just” died. Tell that to those who trusted your president for six years and yet to experience what you and your ilk have been experiencing. Tell that to Gloria’s street sweepers, who are being paid way below the minimum wage – the minimum wage that you and your ilk wants to remain that way, minimum.

The concept of justice is really alien to a lot of people in this country, I’m afraid.

Speaking of learning from history, here’s a scary news story: Champagne corks pop in Manila in echo of Marcos era. The ending part is what scares me:

“There is this mindset, which I think is so passe, that says: “The country is in shambles and the country is having a hard time and you are out there partying”.

But this generation is guiltless when it comes to that.”

This generation will have to learn history the hard way.

(An ABS-CBN News report. Annotated by Arbet Bernardo, annotations in italics.)

President Arroyo was heckled by government employees several times while delivering a speech during the celebration of International Women’s Day at the Ninoy Aquino Stadium in Pasay, Manila Thursday morning.

The President told the crowd at the stadium that the government’s microfinance project seeks to grant loans to the poor so they can start small businesses. She added that the government signed a memorandum of agreement with the Canadian government, which allocates P300 million for women transformation.

She then asked the audience, composed mostly of government employees, who among them had benefited from microfinance.

“Wala (None)!” shouted the audience. Oh dear.

The President then asked Myrna Yao, chairwoman of the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, to explain why the women did not receive financial aid when they should have been the first ones to benefit from it. Yao said the women who had benefited from the project were not invited. Ms. Yao must be having cold sweats by this time.

Mrs. Arroyo asked Yao why the beneficiaries were not invited. She then turned to the audience and asked: “Who among you are conduits to microfinance?”

The crowd again shouted in the negative and started heckling the President. Heads will roll soon….

Yao then explained that most of the beneficiaries attended last year’s Women’s Day rally and that this year’s attendees were all new.Now she must be shaking.

Mrs. Arroyo then asked the audience in Tagalog: “Maybe this is the first time you attended Women’s Day?” She added that nongovernment organizations and government employees should coordinate with the Deparment of Social Welfare and Development, which is managing the microfinance project.

The President also asked the government employees if they received an additional P1,000 monthly allowance, which was implemented last year. The attendees again shouted “None!” and started laughing. Some attendees later realized that they were actually receiving the allowance on top of their regular pay, DZMM reported.Buti pa sila, yung mga street sweepers ni Gloria, wala.

After her speech, Mrs. Arroyo attended a closed-door meeting with Yao and DSWD officials. Uh-oh. Not good.

Why do we keep on punishing the innocent?

When the supposed leakage in the June 2006 nursing board exams leaked to the press, the immediate reaction was for a retake of the exams. The investigations had not even began by then, and yet some people (who are not even in the nursing profession) were calling for a retake.

Well, now these people have succeeded. Nurses who passed the June 2006 exams have to retake if they want to get VisaScreens.

Buried deep by the CGFNS decision and the futile US junket of Congressman Monico Puentevella et al is the root of this scandal. Was there really a proof of leakage? Who made the leak? Who benefited from the leak? Are these people charged in court?

Two members of the Board of Nursing are charged by Ombudsman (after almost six months) only now. That slow office is set to start investigating private individuals involved in the leakage.

The justice system on this country is really slow. The innocents are already punished (and being punished), but the guilty are still being investigated.

For those who advocated retakes: the Supreme Court does not allow retakes in bar exams when leakages occur. What the Court do is to invalidate the section where there was leakage and punish the guilty. Take the 2004 bar exams for example.

The concept of honor and command responsibility is really alien to this administration. In other parts of the world, head would have rolled and resignations would have been tendered. Here, we punish the innocent.

Enrolling your children in a private school does not guarantee a quality education. Many fall prey to the fallacy that private schooling equates to quality education, and not a few learn this lesson the hard way.

With the school year ending in a few weeks, as most students rush to comply with last-minute requirements for clearance, many parents will probably get a shock with their children’s school performance. And when they do, it will probably be too late, all because there are instructors who don’t care at all.

A good teacher will inform a child’s parents immediately if the student is having problems in school, whether academically or otherwise. That way, parents can act on the matter, and the teacher can proceed with corrective action upon consultation with the parents. This is the ideal situation.

Now, things can go wrong on three fronts: an indifferent teacher, an indifferent set of parents, or worse, both are indifferent.

A trip to Navotas (a municipality in Metro Manila) this weekend had led me to write this post.

There is this kid who is enrolled in a private school. The grandparents of this kid (the kid’s mother is an OFW, and his father is the usual husband of an OFW) learned that their grandchild will probably repeat next year; Php 36,000 down the drain. So that the kid will not repeat, teachers had told the guardians to “do” several projects.

The computer instructor had asked for a complex computer program. So complex, in fact, that the student will surely repeat, as the project is clearly above the student’s capability and knowledge. Heck, this type of project is usually given to programming students – in college!

There are several problems to this story.

It is OK to teach students some computer skills. But to teach students programming skills that clearly is way above the student’s capability is wrong. Programming entails advanced analytical skills; in reputable schools, they train programming students to be analytical by loading student course work with several units in Calculus and other hard sciences (chemistry and physics). Clearly, the teacher in the story is not an educator; he is probably a programming major without any training in education.

I understand that finding fully-trained computer-subject educators (with a degree in education) is a problem for secondary schools who offer computer subjects, so some schools are forced to hire the next-best alternative. But without a background in education, a greenhorn teacher (even if fully qualified in IT) is forced to apply what he know (despite the curriculum), sometimes even more than what students can handle. But education schools are fast catching up on this, and it will take a while before the problem is ameliorated.

Testing is a part of the teaching process. This allows a teacher to gauge what the students know, what they have learned, and how they can apply what they have learned. Projects are simply tests to measure how the students apply the knowledge that they have gained.

When a teacher assigns a project, it is assumed that the teacher has taught everything that the student needs to know in order to do the project. You do not test a student on what he doesn’t know (unless it is a diagnostic test); you do not ask a student to do a project that you know he cannot do.

Also, the concept of project-for-passing-grade is just plain wrong. Why study for months when you can pass by just submitting a project?

The fact that the teacher allowed the problems to last at this point in time shows that the teacher is remiss in his duties.

However, the teacher is not solely to blame in this story. Parents and guardians have to make sure that their children are doing good at school. Besides, they get to see the report cards four times a year. By the grades alone, they should know if students are having problems or not, and act accordingly.

If this is the state of education in private schools, are public schools in a much better state? What do you think?

The debate about the economy, to me, is just political noise and not much else. Why should senatorial candidates debate about a topic that is clearly the domain of the executive? Sure, legislators enact economic laws, but they do so because the executive asks them to do so.

In the presidential system of government, it is the executive that sets the economic agenda, and calls on the legislative to enact laws that will support this agenda. Legislators may file bills of economic nature from time to time, but those bills do not fit the agenda, they are not prioritized.

So where does the Senate fit into the so-called debate on the economy? Why debate on statistics? Can they correlate those figures with the bills passed by the Congress?

(Besides, government numbers are always disputed; see this column by Manuel Buencamino. All I can say is this: changing the rules in mid-game is called cheating.)

And as MLQ3 has said, making the economy as the topic of the debate is a double-edged sword. It can always boomerang against the one who threw it.

John Marzan has a continuing post on the issues that should be tackled by the opposition.

Electoral reform and political reform, for starters. We keep on lamenting the kind of politics that we have, yet we fail to take our legislators to task when it comes to these matters. See this PCIJ post for what could have been.

Maybe the economy-as-debate-topic is just a smokescreen to hide other issues that should be tackled.

Is Alan Peter Cayetano more of talk, less of substance?

He is one of the most vocal (and to some, the noisiest) opponents of Gloria Arroyo at the House of Representatives, and the people had seen his performance during the failed impeachment attempts. At that point, he was already considered a senatoriable.

And what a thorn he was to Mike Arroyo’s side. His “expose” of a supposed secret bank account had led to Arroyo’s attempt to have him expelled from the House. However, many are bewildered by Cayetano’s refusal to present his evidence and on his insistence that Arroyo sign a waiver, leading the people believe he is just blustering and fishing.

Cayetano has a plausible reason for such insistence: the secret account cannot be revealed unless Arroyo says anyone can look at it. Arroyo got a certification from a German bank, stating that he has no account with the said bank. At first glance, Cayetano appeared to be a fool.

I cannot blame others if they doubt the competence and reputation of Cayetano. He has yet to show his true mettle. I suggest that he refrain from his attacks and instead tell the people in simplest terms his legislative agenda. (Heck, all senatorial candidates should do this.)

At the end of the day, the people will tell him to either put up or shut up.

—

PS: If there’s one argument for the scrapping of the bar exams, it is one name: Oliver Lozano.

With the apathy that most of us displayed when the 21st anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution passed by, Gloria Arroyo had fittingly buried the EDSA phenomenon by calling on Filipinos to forsake another EDSA.

Fittingly, for she had hijacked that phenomenon in 2001 to meet her own goals. And with the people badly burned by the experience, she played with that apathy with skill so that EDSA will not be used against her.

The shot that started it all began in 2001. The final blow happened last year, when all possible EDSA moments were trashed by Proclamation 1017 and the calibrated preemptive response. The statement made by Arroyo yesterday was the burial eulogy.

And the fact that only a thin crowd was there to witness the burial ceremony was a sign that its death is already fait accompli. Afterall, the people are rather busy attending to more important things – the Kris Aquino-James Yap-Hope Centeno story and the start of Pinoy Big Brother, to name a few.