I went to a technical school and graduated high school in the 1980s with two diplomas: one academic and the other technical. The latter is the present-day equivalent of a TESDA* diploma for vocational education. My four years in high school were enough to qualify me for university or immediate employment as an electronics technician. In short, at 16, I was already employable.
I chose university, of course. Most high school graduates did, as long as their families could afford it. Fortunately, I was accepted into the State University. Back then, an 18-unit semester in Diliman cost just a little over P1,000. But while tuition was cheap, the education was not.
I can judge things only from experience, and in my case, education-wise, I would like to think things went well. I was never academically prolific, but I passed. I graduated, though not on time, and entered the workforce at 22. I did not need an extra two years in high school to “make it” successfully out of the school system.
My father finished high school in the 1950s, a proud graduate of the Victorino Mapa High School in Manila. His teachers were among the last of the so-called Thomasites. Practical arts were part of their regular high school curriculum. They were taught gardening, carpentry, electrical work, automotive mechanics, and retail merchandising, among other subjects.
In high school, he said, he and his classmates in electricity could build their own electrical transformers. After public high school, those who could not afford university were already employable as skilled workers — courtesy of their public high school education. Some opted to further hone their skills in trade schools or through apprenticeships.
For my peers and me, we were similarly employable as high school graduates, armed with technical diplomas. We could work as electronics or electrical technicians, automotive mechanics, machinists in machine shops, or draftsmen in architectural and engineering firms. We could all produce technical or mechanical drawings, thanks to two years of drafting studies. We had also undergone general shop work, including carpentry, metalwork, and basic electrical wiring.
Having grown up in such an environment, I was never supportive of several government initiatives in education in recent years: the transition to K-12 and the introduction of Senior High School (SHS), the removal of the General Education program in colleges, full free tuition in state universities, and the shift of the school opening to August from June, among others.
I never believed that adding two more years to high school, removing General Education subjects from colleges, or shifting the school calendar to August-May would improve basic education and help Filipinos perform better in school and life. Incidentally, school opening reverts to June this coming school year.
In this context, I support House Bill No. 7893, which proposes making SHS optional and allowing students to take a government-administered exam that could exempt them from SHS. The bill seeks to amend Republic Act No. 10533, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, which legislated the K-to-12 program.
However, my support is partial since the proposed exemption would only allow students to skip SHS and move on to technical-vocational education. It does not exempt those intending to enter university. In other words, if one wishes to go to university, Grades 11 and 12 remain mandatory. This requirement stems from the removal of General Education subjects from higher education, which previously covered non-major subjects during the freshman and sophomore years.
SHS exemption cannot be absolute due to how the K-12 program has been designed and its impact on higher education. Without Grades 11 and 12, university entrants might struggle with major subjects. Thus, a full exemption from SHS would require an overhaul of both K-12 and higher education curricula.
Lawmakers have concluded that graduates of the current education system are not well-prepared for work or university. Consequently, adjustments like HB 7893 are being considered. However, I believe the bill is misplaced. Instead of offering SHS exemption only for those pursuing technical-vocational education, the government should instead focus on enhancing basic education to make high school graduates employable.
Should the government push high school students toward a technical-vocational track by incentivizing them with SHS exemption? Skills-based training should not just be an escape route for those who cannot afford SHS or university or need to earn a living early. Exceptional students who qualify to skip SHS should instead be given scholarships to pursue higher learning, not merely redirected to skills-based training.
The country certainly needs more skilled workers. To some extent, the curriculum should align with industry needs. However, filling quotas for skilled workers — whether for local or overseas employment — should not come at the expense of the best and brightest public high school students who cannot afford SHS or university. Instead of pushing them into skills training, they should be given opportunities to pursue higher education.
In my opinion, one approach is to integrate basic education with technical-vocational programs — essentially combining K-12 with TESDA. The government should aim to make every public high school graduate a “skilled” worker with a high degree of proficiency in a particular trade. The goal should be to ensure that every public high school graduate — whether in four or six years — is both academically and technically certified and employable.
To complement this, the government should expand on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs, enhance partnerships with industries and trade associations, and establish more cooperative education initiatives. There should be Continuing Education programs for skilled workers as well. And assessment and certification processes should be upgraded to create a reliable and credible grading and evaluation system for skilled workers.
Speaking from experience, this is not impossible. My peers and I, and many people before and after us, all underwent a combined education program, and many can attest that a “double curriculum” — academic and technical — can work. Post-war public-school programs were also designed this way, recognizing the growing economy’s need for skilled workers.
Artificial intelligence and automation can only replace skilled workers to a certain extent. The economy will always require people with technical skills, though the demand will depend on the type of skills available and their level of proficiency. Basic education and skills training remain the strongest foundation for sustaining and expanding these workforce needs.
*Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
