Reforming the country’s education system
Credit to Author: DR. WILLIAM DAR| Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:44:16 +0000
Just how relevant and responsive is the country’s current higher education system?
If we are to go by scores from the World Economic (WEF) for 2018, I can say that we really need to reform or reformulate higher education in the country to make it more relevant and responsive to our fast changing times, especially now that technology is accelerating change.
The WEF gave out scores for Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, and Innovation and Sophistication for various Asian countries, including the Philippines. The highest score was 1 and the lowest 137.
For Health and Primary Education, the Philippines got a score of 82, 55 for Higher Education and Training, and 61 for Innovation and Sophistication. Not surprisingly, Singapore and Japan got very high scores. Singapore scored 3 for Health and Primary Education, 1 for Higher Education and Training, and 12 for Innovation and Sophistication.
Japan’s scores were 7 for Health and Primary Education, 23 for Higher Education and Training, and 6 for Innovation and Sophistication.
The Philippines, however, did better in Health and Education compared to Thailand (90) and Indonesia (84). Also, the country did better in Higher Education and
Training than Indonesia (64).
When it came to Innovation and Sophistication, the Philippines did not do better than Thailand (47) and Indonesia (31).
The scores from the WEF clearly demonstrate one thing: higher education needs to be reformed in the Philippines to also make it regionally and globally competitive. What is very clear from the WEF scores is sophistication and innovation are clearly linked with the quality of higher education.
So what is the way forward to this issue?
The way forward
From Global University Network for Innovation, several steps were enumerated to reformulate higher education, which I believe are very applicable to the Philippine setting.
Let me discuss them one by one.
Number one is to initiate changes in universities at the level of their internal organization, which should lead to improvement of management of resources, including human and financial. More importantly, higher education institutions (HEIs) must improve their internal structures to promote internal democracy.
“Changes in knowledge creation” was also recommended by the Global University Network for Innovation, or inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches be employed while non-scientific forms of knowledge be explored. I believe among the non-scientific knowledge or skills that need to be promoted are creativity, leadership and entrepreneurship.
“Changes in the educational model” relate to employing new teaching and learning approaches that foster and develop critical and creative thinking. I believe Singapore has already taken steps to make its educational system promote more creative thinking and leadership.
Tapping the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) was also recommended for the creation and dissemination of knowledge. And with the Internet of Things, there is so much knowledge explosion in the past decade that higher education institutions (HEIs) must tap ICT to be updated in knowledge, how to create more knowledge, and how to disseminate it.
Also recommended was “Changes for social responsibility and knowledge transfer,” meaning HEIs must contemplate very clearly their role in serving society and tailor their research and development agenda for industry and stakeholders. Knowledge transfer mechanisms, like partnering with industries and stakeholders, I must say, should be aggressively pursued.
Enshrined in the Constitution
The right to quality education is enshrined in the Constitution, and there are certain provisions that mandate that HEIs must foster creativity and scientific knowledge for our country’s progress.
Specifically, part of paragraph 2 of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Constitution (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports), states that educational institutions must “encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.”
Furthernore, paragraph 10 states: “Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country’s productive systems and national life.”
Perhaps this is the first time I discussed in a column a topic not entirely about agriculture, but I must state that it was my concern on the state of higher education related to agriculture that prompted me to discuss what also needs to be done to reform HEIs in the Philippines.
Also, the average age of our farmers is between 56 to 60 years old, and there is still very little technological application in farms and fisheries. I have discussed those issues extensively in past columns.
However, I commend the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) for advocating the establishment and transformation of HEIs into Centers of Excellence (COEs) and Centers of Development (COD), where the educational institutions go beyond fulfilling the basic requirement of educating people.
CHEd said a COE should be also be engaged in “instruction, research, creative work, publications, and extension for specific academic programs.” Eventually, a bonafide COD transforms to a COE.
From what I have seen in some HEIs in the Philippines, the race to become a COD and COE has already started. And I hope more HEIs join that race so they also become game changers for industry, including agriculture.
The post Reforming the country’s education system appeared first on The Manila Times Online.