Coach Albert’s Thoughts About the K-12
In April 2012, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority or TESDA asked me to look at the policy implications of the K-12 to tech-voc (I missed doing policy issue papers since I shifted to education).
I told TESDA that as a major curriculum reform, the K-12 will “penetrate” into the powers and functions of TESDA as the authority in TVET in the Philippines (Read RA 7796).
At this point, I’m pretty sure that you’ve already heard or read that one of the specialization tracks in the Senior High School is the tech-voc track. Offering tech-voc in the basic education cycle will have both positive and negative repercussions to the administration and supervision of tech-voc in the country (or what TESDA does).
More than a year ago, I listed a number of issues and gray areas that should be resolved by TESDA. These issues pertain to balancing internal improvements: the UTPRAS, development of training regulations, the National Tech-Voc Plan and external accountability functions (making education in the country “seamless”).
I think that it is imperative for TESDA to adjust some of its policies since DepEd is taking the lead in the K-12. TESDA cannot say NO to changes because K-12 is expected to bring a stronger international credibility of education in the Philippines, thereby “facilitating the mobility of workforce across borders” (Park, 2004).
So for TESDA, the K-12 is a welcome development in the education sector. Up until the signing of the K-12 law in Malacanang, TESDA supported it all the way. Why? Because the basic education curriculum is the springboard of technical and higher education. TESDA sustains its enthusiasm in ironing out the role of the agency and in clarifying the embedment of tech-voc in the basic education ladder.
Talk about political will? Bravo TESDA!