The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) recently released its final report, framing the Philippines’ education crisis as stemming from issues with teacher quality—specifically, weak training, low competencies, and poor performance on licensure examinations.
This diagnosis and the proposed solutions—stricter standards, tougher licensure, expanded professional development, and tighter performance metrics—are familiar, according to the report. But, a central question remains unanswered: does the crisis originate and conclude with teachers, or does a focus on “teacher quality” obscure deeper, systemic failures within the Philippine education system?
Educators and education workers believe the crisis is systemic, and that centering the issue on individual teachers shifts responsibility away from the State. Jason Pozon of the All UP Academic Employees Union stated, “The backbone of the education system is teaching and learning, but it is unjust to say that the crisis lies with individual teachers.” He further explained, “The problem is systemic—a deeply entrenched and widespread education system.”
Pozon pointed to chronic shortages in classrooms, learning materials, equipment, and student support services as conditions that impact teaching outcomes before any licensure exam is taken. He too noted that “Teacher quality is also shaped by the quality of life teachers are allowed to have,” questioning how quality education can be delivered when teachers themselves lack adequate living conditions.
Despite decades of reforms—including EDCOM I, K–12, the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), and the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) law—educational outcomes remain poor. Critics argue that low passing rates on the BLEPT reflect deeper neglect, including underfunded schools, overcrowded classrooms, low salaries, and a training system disconnected from the realities of teachers, particularly in public schools and rural areas.
EDCOM II proposes tighter alignment of pre-service education, licensure, and in-service training with performance standards. However, teachers express concern that these reforms primarily serve bureaucratic compliance and institutional monitoring. Ruby Bernardo, National Chairperson of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), stated, “These reforms do not reduce our burden, they add to it,” adding that teachers remain overworked and underpaid, with standards imposed without addressing these fundamental issues.
Teachers also report that professional development has grow a financial burden, with teachers paying for seminars simply to comply with requirements, rather than for genuine improvement. This disproportionately affects low-paid teachers and those in remote areas with limited access to affordable, relevant training. Planned phase-outs of “low-performing” teacher education institutions raise concerns about access for students from poor and rural communities.
Concerns have also been raised about the foreign orientation of many education reforms, with licensure frameworks and curricula often modeled after systems in advanced economies without considering Philippine realities. As universities pursue global rankings, education may become detached from local needs.
Teachers’ groups argue that EDCOM II overlooks critical issues such as chronic underfunding, low salaries, job insecurity, mental health, and academic freedom. Education spending remains below the internationally recommended six percent of GDP, and overcrowded classrooms and stagnant wages persist. The exclusion of union representatives and rank-and-file educators from the study’s composition also raises questions about whose expertise is being prioritized.
For education advocates in Mindanao, the omissions are particularly glaring. The Save Our Schools (SOS) Network criticized EDCOM II for failing to address the closure of over 200 Lumad community schools since 2015 and the criminalization of educators. Sr. Concepcion Gasang, SOS lead convenor, stated, “You cannot speak of education reform while Indigenous schools remain padlocked and teachers are convicted for protecting displaced children.”
educators believe EDCOM II’s findings reiterate existing knowledge: the Philippine education system is fragile, underfunded, and misaligned with the country’s realities. The core issue, they argue, is that education has been treated as a technical problem to be managed, rather than a public good to be fully funded and grounded in the needs of the Filipino people.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did EDCOM II identify as the primary cause of the education crisis?
EDCOM II framed the country’s education crisis as a problem of teacher quality, citing weak training, low competencies, and poor performance on licensure examinations.
What concerns do teachers have about the proposed reforms?
Teachers are concerned that the proposed reforms—stricter standards and increased performance metrics—will add to their burden without addressing underlying issues like low wages, understaffing, and excessive paperwork.
What systemic issues were identified as contributing to the crisis?
Chronic shortages in classrooms, learning materials, equipment, and student support services, as well as inadequate funding and a training system detached from teachers’ realities, were identified as systemic issues contributing to the crisis.
Given the complex challenges facing the Philippine education system, what role should community involvement and local context play in shaping future reforms?
