When the news about the 85% decline in the literacy rate of our grade-level students became public a month ago, I felt an overwhelming urge to reread a book I had borrowed in our University’s library in the latter part of 2024. I began asking myself: What went wrong? How did we arrive at this point, where access to schooling is widespread, yet learning is increasingly fragile? It made me wonder whether the answers were already written long ago but simply ignored. Unfortunately, my university’s library had been affected by the earthquake, and access to its physical collection was restricted. With no other option, I asked the librarian to open my library records so I could check the list of books I had previously borrowed, and there it was.
I thought about my own elementary days. I could already read the entire My Story Book at six, starting with Henny Penny. I had memorized the entire multiplication tables at seven, wrote essays at nine and recited declamation pieces from memory. By thirteen, I was already writing poetry, and there were students even better than me.
So how is it that many students today struggle to read even by fifth grade?
In a statement issued on Friday, January 16 EDCOM2 presented a stark picture: proficiency rates plunge from 30.52% in 3rd grade to just 0.47% by 12th grade. I understand that literacy has always been a challenge, not just for a decade, but for many. In fact, during the last quarter of the past century, the quality of education had already been judged as declining, as shown in studies such as SOUTELE( Study on the Outcomes on Elementary Education) and in the outcomes of the National College Entrance Examinations.
Our educational system began to weaken when we focused too much on competing with international educational standards. There is nothing wrong with aiming high but in doing so, we seem to have overlooked what matters most: allowing teachers to truly teach and letting young learners master the basics in the way they are meant to. If students are not ready for the next level, they should be allowed to repeat not as a punishment, but as a chance to truly learn, grow, and become prepared.
It was this realization that led me back to a voice from the past one that speaks with striking clarity to our present condition.
The following is an excerpt from Bonifacio P. Sibayan’s essay in The Long-Ago Teacher: Reflections on Philippine Education (1992, p. 11-12).
Before World War II ("up to the year 1941" is another way of referring to the period), the great majority of teachers in the elementary schools did not have bachelor's degrees; in fact, many did not even graduate from high-school and those who graduated from secondary normal schools were considered highly qualified. A teacher whose name was followed by the initials PNS for Philippine Normal School (e.g., Juan de la Cruz, PNS) was highly envied. Many division superintendents did not have college degrees. Those with bachelor's degrees were rare and one with an M.A. was very rare. One of our instructors at the PNS who had just obtained his M.A. at the University of the Philippines spent a good deal of our class time telling us how he managed to obtain the degree. One who had a Ph.D. was so rare that we didn't even know what it meant; to use the art of exaggeration, one who had the Ph.D. came from outer space. By the time our class completed the seventh grade, I think the highest academic attainment Of· any of our teachers was second year or third year high school; one of them finished grade five. In spite of this situation, however, practically all those who finished grade seven managed to learn elementary ratio and proportion and solve problems of percentage, knew how to use the dictionary, and best of all, prac tically all of us did not only know how to locate most . places on a map of the world, but could also draw the various continents on the blackboard or on paper and indicate most cities or places dictated by the teacher. Practically all of us by the time we were in grade five · could draw the map of the Philippines and indicate towns, rivers, mountain ranges, and the most important products of each province or region. We were proud of our penmanship (teachers could write beautifully in those days) and our ability to spell. In addition we had memorized poems and sayings about honesty and hard work. I repeat, this we managed to do with the teachers whose education did not include a college degree. (For an evaluation of the achievement of pupils during the fll'st quarter of the century, the reader is referred to the volume popularly known in education circles as the Monroe Survey Commission Report published by the Bureau of Printing in 1925. In fact a rereading of this report is recommended to all serious students of Philippine education.) In contrast, the minimum educational qualification of an elementary school teacher during the past quarter of the century is a four-year college degree. By 1956 the minimum requirement for elementary school teaching was a four-year college degree. Very many have acquired an M.A. and a Ph.D . . While comparisons may be unfair because of obviously differing conditions and factors, the observation may be made here that it is also during the last quarter of the century when the quality of education has been judged the lowest as evidenced by studies such as that of the Study on the Outcomes of Elementary Education (popularly known as SOUI'ELE in education circles) and by the results of the National College Entrance Examinations (NCE~). It is hard to believe from these observations that the levels of It is hard to believe from these observations that the levels of achievement of pupils do not necessarily improve with higher educational qualifications of teachers, supervisors, and administrators. What the evidence suggests is very disturbing. This needs careful study. And soon, because of the current "retraining" of teachers for the new elementary school curriculum.
Now compare that to today.
Today, teachers are highly credentialed. Most hold bachelor’s degrees. Many have Master’s even have PhDs. They attend seminars, trainings, retraining programs, workshops, and curriculum orientations. On paper, this is the most “qualified” generation of teachers in history.
And yet…
* Students are failing.
* Proficiency levels are falling
* Reading comprehension is weak.
* Basic math is shaky.
* Critical thinking is rare.
* Attention spans are shorter.
* Writing is poorer.
* Geographical knowledge is minimal.
* Even basic discipline and study habits are deteriorating.
So Sibayan’s observation becomes painfully relevant:
Higher teacher qualifications do not automatically produce better learners.
We assumed that more degrees meant better education.
We assumed that more credentials meant better teaching.
We assumed that modernization meant improvement.
But the data and what teachers witness every day in their classrooms tell a different story.
The old system produced competent, grounded, and disciplined learners, even with undereducated teachers. The current system produces fragile, distracted, and underperforming learners, even with highly educated teachers.
That contradiction should disturb us.
Because it tells us something crucial:
The problem is not just teacher qualification.
It is systemic.
And when we say systemic, we mean:
-Teachers are no longer free to teach the way students need.
- Students are no longer allowed to learn at their own pace.
- Schools are no longer allowed to prioritize depth.
- Everyone is forced to move forward — even when learning hasn’t happened.
That’s why it becomes dangerous.
Because when a system is broken, obedience becomes harmful.
People aren’t failing because they’re lazy.
They’re failing because they’re forced to follow a system that doesn’t serve learning.
© 2026 J.D. Ferrer.
-----
References:
EDCOM 2 as cited in GMA Integrated News. (2025, December 2). EDCOM 2 flags literacy crisis: 85% of Grades 1 to 3 learners are struggling readers. GMA Integrated News.
Sibayan, B. P. (1992). The long-ago teacher: Reflections on Philippine education. Phoenix Publishing House.
