| PersonalBlog | CommonsBlog | CannedThoughts | Gallery |
An opportunity arising from the new Philippine DepEd policy on public school textbooks
Development in Philippine Education
An inquiry in the Philippine Senate last January focused not only on the poor quality of textbooks, but also on allegations that the process of bidding for textbook contracts was flawed. [ 1 ] Subsequently, veteran employees of the Department of Education (DepEd) and members of the militant Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) called on the DepEd Secretary and other top officials of said agency to break up the so-called textbook cartel. [ 2 ] Allegedly, a small cartel of publishers controlled 75 percent of the printing contracts with the government. [ 3 ] DepEd's Secretary Jesli A. Lapus allegedly admitted earlier that indeed a group of suppliers had been cornering huge textbook contracts. [ 4 ]
Hence, on 10 July 2007, the DepEd's Secretary stressed that said department had adopted stringent measures to pursue improvement in the process of evaluating and procuring textbooks for the public school system. The DepEd had announced that it had provided a new process where the development of book content is to be bidded separately from the printing requirement. [ 5 ]
Lingering Issues
Although this is a welcome development in the printing of crucial literature for distribution to the public school system, the issue as to the contents for the books remains to linger. Where will the content come from? Would the evaluation of the content be in the same manner that allegedly flawed content of previous books? Would there be mechanisms for the public to appraise the accuracy and the propriety of the content before such could even be printed? Again, these questions remain relevant since the new process provided by the DepEd merely solves the stranglehold of a purported printing cartel, if it actually does, but not the content issue.
The downside in the new DepEd policy is that content developers, who have sterling academic background, would lose certain resources, such as linguists and editors, that could have been present if the content developer is intimately intertwined with the publisher. To pursue content that would meet quality standards, the content developer needs to personally team up with linguists and editors, among others. If not, the content developer could procure the services of these individuals through a third-party organization, an organization which does not necessarily exclude a publisher from participation. In the latter scenario, the publisher can remain to be omnipresent in the textbook printing process – a situation that sought to be avoided by the new policy – even if the process has been split into two. Yet, the upside in the new DepEd policy is that content developers who do not have massive printing capability can take the opportunity to be involved in the endeavor of creating academic materials for the public school system. This somehow rectifies the former situation, since content development and printing is no longer intimately tied together, a matter that is previously within the absolute sphere of publishers' capability.
The efficacy of the new arrangement, however, remains to be tested. The controversies arising from the content could only be resolved depending upon the process that would be pursued by the standards or the bidding committee of the DepEd. If the scrutiny of the content would remain within the committee prior to printing, the controversies relating to the appropriateness of the content could only be scrutinized by the public only after the printing process has been completed. This does not rectify scenarios where there have been strong criticism in the past against the language or faulty expressions, [ 6 ] and the focus and treatment of the content in said books, [ 7 ] among others. The only way, although preliminary in nature, in which headway could be had in content reform would be that the proposed content be made public prior to publication. This would prevent the subsequent publication of an extensive errata guide for the errors overlooked by the content provider and the appropriate DepEd committee.
The other issue, which is related to the last issue provided above, is that one of the limitation in a centralized system of content development lies in the manner in which comments and suggestions are to be considered to achieve the final contents of the book. There may be a tendency for the content developer, to maintain content control, to brush aside possibly valid criticisms and suggestions, especially if the latter would entail a substantial modification of the proposed content. It could go down the way the published errata guide went, i.e. where it was observed that the guide “dealt mostly with inconsequential topics like spelling, but neglected to correct flagrant factual errors the books contain.” [ 8 ] Further, the correlation between the content development bid price and the corresponding manhours that need to be further allocated to the project, to ensure quality, is a primary factor for the content developer needs to seriously consider. It remains a question whether utmost quality can be achieved, considering the instancy of practical considerations pertaining to financial losses, if not profit margins.
The Opportunity
Be that as it may, the new DepEd policy provides the opportunity to encourage the development of an alternative content provider. This content provider can embrace more individuals or participants into the effort, akin to the online resources Wikipedia [ 9 ] and Wikibooks, [ 10 ] among others. It can as well approximate the model of the Free High School Science Texts (FHSST) [ 11 ] in South Africa – with or without the non-government organization (NGO) component, as alternative or suppletory actor to the government, in the distribution of said books to public schools.
This alternative content provider need not substitute the traditional content providers that may be willing to exert their effort in providing quality text. The existence of which would merely provide an addition to the options available in such endeavor. The alternative content provider, although operating under a loftier principle – towards public collaboration, empowerment, open content, etc. – cannot be made as a poster entity or a platform to claim that content development for a fee, or by a very limited number of individuals, is necessarily inimical to public interest. The whole point revolves around choices. The pecuniary distinction is incidental to those choices, although it could occur that this would be the main point for those who already have deep-set biases on which option is to be the best to take. Choices have their own pros and cons, and choosers have to weigh among those pros and cons provided by each choice.
Relating to the high textbook issue, one of the advantages in an open content endeavor, besides the cost on the government for the acquisition of the work, is the availability of the proposed text in the Internet, whether it may be in a development stage or in a final draft, independent from the policy that may be imposed in its availability by the standards committee of the appropriate government agency. Public scrutiny can come in even at the earliest possible opportunity of the content development, and the comments thereon can be aired at the discussion space made available in the wiki. This advantage, of course, can be offset by government policy that would allow the content of proprietory content developers to be made public prior to printing,
Corollary to this, another advantage is the transparency in the discussions since the standards of online collaboration encourage the consideration on the suggestions and comments of other contributors and the public to ensure the quality of the content being published, and the proper direction and focus of the contents being presented. This advantage, of course, can be offset by the willingness of proprietory content developers to act upon or adopt the suggestions of the public as to the content, or its presentation.
The disadvantage on online collaboration endeavor depends upon the quality of the individuals participating therein, since the contributors are coming, perhaps, from diverse backgrounds and not necessarily having the highest education degrees, i.e. like having Ph.D. credentials. Corollary thus to this is the maintenance of a determinable and dependable standards for the collaborative project itself. [ 12 ] This is not much of an issue to proprietory content developers since the prime movers behind their endeavors are known and reputable individuals with clear credentials, unless of course these are particularly assailed or contested, and content control is largely centralized or confined to a very limited number of contributors. This disadvantage, of course, can be offset by the existence of similarly known and reputable individuals of similar credentials at the helm of the collaborative project – perhaps even having guidance from the government – who would be active in determining the direction of the content presentation, and assuring the quality of the content posted by contributors from the grassroots.
Nevertheless, whether the collaborative project should win or not in the content development bidding process, the collaborative project remains an available resource for those who are outside the formal education system, or remains an alternative resource for other educational institutions which are outside the public school system to avail and disseminate the material to their own wards.
Without thus elaborating on a litany of advantages and disadvantages, in addition to those above, an online collaborative project towards the content development of elementary and high school textbooks can find good use in the pursuit of quality education and fruitful learning, whether the latter terms be taken synonymously or distinctly.
Endnotes
1. Conde, Carlos H. "English getting lost in translation in Philippines." 13 August 2007. The International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 14 August 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/13/business/english.php?page=2
2. Esplanada, Jerry E. “‘End textbook cartel,’ DepEd vets, tutors ask Lapus.” Inquirer. 25 June 2007 issue. Retrieved 14 August 2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?articl...
3. Conde, supra.
4. Ibid.
5. “DepEd: stringent measures in textbook procurement in place.” Department of Education. Retrieved 14 August 2007. http://www.deped.gov.ph/updates/updateslinks.asp?id=191
6. Conde, supra.
7. Go, Antonio Calipjo. “Textbook authors in awe of Marcos” 8 June 2007. Inquirer.net. Retrieved 21 August 2007. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?a... ; See also “Samplings from Educator Go’s catalogue of errors.” 11 August 2007. The Manila Times Internet Edition, Special Report. Retrieved similarly on 21 August 2007. http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/aug/12/yehey/top_stories/200708...
8. Esplanada, Jerry E. “Textbook critic wants PDI editors in DepEd meeting” 15 August 2007. Retrieved 21 August 2007. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?articl...
12. See Levine, Greg. “Sun's McNealy Leads Non-Profit Open-Source Drive.” 4 August 2007. Forbes.com LLC™ Retrieved 22 August 2007. http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/04/sun-mcnealy-education-cx_gl_0804autofac...
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License. |
Post new comment