adding 2 more years to basic education will further widen the rich & poor divide
the DepEd seems all set to add two more years to the country’s 10 year basic education curriculum. this is a very tough issue to crack. we think it is a clash between reality and the ideal. a question unanswered – is this for the common good?
the truth is there are already many problems at the current 10-year curriculum and it has nothing to do with number of years. to enumerate a few – there are not enough qualified teachers to teach all the students; that is made worst with just too many students; there are not enough classrooms and schools to comfortably fit all the students (not to mention not enough bathrooms and water supply); there are not enough books; add the problem of poor quality books, on top of that there are not enough facilities and finally very high drop out rates.
the latter, high drop out rates is being caused by something out of the education system but affects a large part of the population – poverty. there are just so many poor families and they are so poor that many of them cannot afford to pay for the already meager amount needed for the education of their children. grade school and high school are free in public schools with parents needing to just spend on uniforms, fare and some expenses. the tuition which normally accounts for a very large share of the total expenses are free and yet most poor families can still not afford of what is left for them to spend. it is not that the expenses are high, it’s just their income is very, very low.
it is this inability to afford the other expenses that has caused a very high drop out rate among students.
this plan of the DepEd to add two more years will of course not solve any of the above problems. in fact, it will only extend all those problems by two more years. a longer basic education will also mean even higher drop out rates.
then there is the problem of additional expenses for the government. as of now, with the 10 year curriculum, there is already desperate lack of classrooms and schools. the public schools cannot turn the students away when they show up to enroll. to cope many public schools have crammed as many students as they can inside the classroom with classrooms crammed with chairs from wall to wall. not enough, the schools conduct classes in at least shifts, in some instances classes held very early in the morning till late in the evening.
with two additional years, the schools will definitely need to construct new buildings and classrooms or God forbid conduct classes 24/7.
the above is the reality part. below is the ideal part.
on the other hand, the DepEd could be right – the country’s 10 year basic education curriculum might be inadequate given today’s demands and may put the country’s students at a disadvantage versus our asian neighbors who already employ 12 years of basic education.
here is looking for the greater good – for sure, very few of the poor will benefit from the expected benefits of a 12 year curriculum. an even larger number of the poor will drop out of school. they cannot afford to pay for a 10 year curriculum now, the more they cannot afford a 12 year curriculum.
the rich on the other hand will benefit from it. they can afford to spend for the additional two years and if the DepEd is correct, we will have a much better educated and skilled middle to upper class.
will the country be better off as a whole with a large part of the population who are the poor less educated and a better educated upper class which account for a very small portion of the population.
education to the filipino family is all about opportunities for the students and the family and with this plan the opportunities it seems will be disproportionately distributed even more inequitably in favor of the rich.the rich and poor divide will widen even further.
where is for the greater good here?
wawam
antenna1
doorkn0b
alexangelph
shenbrood
1mprayers
dandansoy
xyz123
2thousand10
According to this news article on GMANews.tv, http://www.gmanews.tv/story/198166/deped-to-phase-in-12-years-of-basic-education, these reforms “will be implemented gradually over a number of years and may go beyond the term of the current or even next administration.”
This plan holds a lot of promise… if it is done right, and due sensitivity is given to the fact that our education budget is already stretched and we are indeed facing a lot of problems in the education sector. The lack of classrooms, quality teachers, educational materials are indeed valid concerns, but I think that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to catch up with every other country out there that has a 12 year educational system while we’re stuck with 10. The extra 2 years might not be that big a deal in the local setting, but a lot of Filipinos do have trouble getting their courses credited in other countries since they lack the 2 extra years that these countries demand. Plus there is the argument that cramming all that knowledge into just 10 years while all the other countries have them in 12 or more could be detrimental to our students’ capacity to retain and use the knowledge they’ve learned. And with a lot of public schools resorting to morning and afternoon shifts of 5 hours/day instead of the ideal of 7-8 hours/day of schooling because of the lack of classrooms… oh well, the debate continues.
It seems like DepEd is following due process in the implementation of this plan. They will present their “rough draft” on Oct 5, coinciding with World Teachers’ Day, and they will be welcoming feedback from all educational stakeholders. That is welcome news indeed. It is PRECISELY because they anticipate a lot of opposition to its passage by a lot of well-meaning individuals that they are taking their time in ensuring that their proposal is timely, feasible, and adequate. It’s hard to say if this plan will really overextend our already stretched education budget to its absolute limit since it hasn’t been unveiled in full yet. Who knows, maybe DepEd will surprise us this time around. So let’s not jump the gun on this yet.
I am especially intrigued with what Sec. Luistro said about high school graduates being productively employed even without college in their proposed 12 year setup. Does that mean more tech-voc in the curriculum? I guess we’ll see.
even if they implement this gradually, will the problem of poverty be licked by the time they complete the slow motion change?
Probably not. But we also have to take into consideration that we are the only country in Asia with the shortest basic education curriculum. That means that countries like Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Bangladesh and other Asian countries out there that are arguably poorer than ours have more than a 10-year system in place. If poor countries like theirs can do it, why can’t we?
I think we shouldn’t automatically dismiss plans like these on the grounds that we can’t possibly afford it, we’re too poor, etc. it’s like we’re already giving up without even trying.
Don’t get me wrong. Poverty is a BIG problem, and I for one am interested to know about the specifics of how they’re going to implement this. Once they make their announcement on Oct 5, we’ll be in a much better position to critique them on this because we’ll know what their plans are. Then we’ll know if they’re being too ambitious and if the plan is unsustainable… and maybe, as you said, we need to concentrate on other things first.
Check this Inquirer article out: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20100814-286804/How-to-go-from-10-to-12-years. Their Talk of the Town section for today has articles that are both for and against this proposal.
CORRECTION: We are the only country in Asia with a 10-year basic education curriculum
i am not necessarily against the 12 year curriculum. all that i am pointing out is the 12 year curriculum will further widen the divide between the rich and the poor.
when the government implements the 12 year curriculum, other govt agencies must act even more aggressively in mitigating poverty in the country.
i agree. the government must address the problem of poverty on more than one front. if we do have 2 extra years added to our education, that will mean 2 extra years of basic ed that families need to finance.
however, i don’t necessarily agree that it will widen the divide between the rich and the poor. in miguel luz’s article in the Inquirer, he pointed out that the initial scheme targets public schools only, while private schools will follow to the extent that their own resources will allow them to do so. if done properly, a 12 year curriculum should enhance and improve our existing public school curriculum. this will allow public schools to catch up with private schools. a good public school curriculum will actually be beneficial for both school types, because private schools will then feel compelled to improve theirs as well since that’s their justification for attracting paying students.
in addition to that, assuming that DepEd’s 12-year curriculum will actually make public high school graduates employment-ready and employment-viable straight after high school as they’ve been claiming, poorer students can then land reasonably good jobs without the need to pay for a college degree, which is much more expensive than basic education anyway.
A longer basic education system might also mean that some college degrees will become shorter in the long run, since some courses and universities require basic subjects in the 1st year to compensate for our short basic ed curriculum. that’s 1 less year of expensive college education for those who decide to go to college.
y should it not implemented?the government is willing to support to this project
I am especially intrigued with what Sec. Luistro said about high school graduates being productively employed even without college in their proposed 12 year setup. Does that mean more tech-voc in the curriculum? I guess we’ll see.
the truth is there are already many problems at the current 10-year curriculum and it has nothing to do with number of years. to enumerate a few – there are not enough qualified teachers to teach all the students; that is made worst with just too many students; there are not enough classrooms and schools to comfortably fit all the students (not to mention not enough bathrooms and water supply); there are not enough books; add the problem of poor quality books, on top of that there are not enough facilities and finally very high drop out rates.
i think no need to add 2 more years… it is the student actually if she/he really wants to have an education or pursue something. one thing more is that, it will add another burden to the parents because they will need more money again to send their students to school for another two years. what is important i think is that the government should give more books..
lets face it, the rich and poor divide also applies to philippine education. the rich and the poor do get very different types of education including the two very different benefits.
there is no way the poor is getting the same kind of education than the rich just on the basis of the conditions of the classrooms the public schools can afford.
Cost of setting up two additional years and universal preschool
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:18:00 08/14/2010
Filed Under: Schools, Education
MANILA, Philippines—Additional year of high school
Increase in enrollment (SY 2010-11 to SY 2016-17)= 2.5 million
Additional classrooms needed @ 45 students/classroom = 55,165
Additional teachers needed @ 1.5 teachers per new class = 82,749
Additional year of elementary school
Increase in enrollment (SY 2010-11 to SY 2016-17)= 3.8 million
Additional classrooms needed @ 45 students/classroom = 83,909
Additional teachers needed @ 1.3 teachers per new class = 130,031
Universal preschool
Increase in enrollment (SY 2010-11 to SY 2016-17) = 3.1 million
Classrooms needed @ 30 students/class (double shift) = 42,177
Teachers needed = 84,360
Total investment to be made at current unit costs
High school = P54.9 billion (from SY 2010-11 to SY 2015-16)
Elementary = P53.7 billion
Universal preschool = P41.3 billion
TOTAL = P149.9 billion for five years or P30 billion a year
The estimates should be refined by DepEd on a year-to-year basis based on actual enrollments.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20100814-286806/Cost-of-setting-up-two-additional-years-and-universal-preschool
these figures do seem daunting; that’s why crucial implementation is key, and full disclosure should be given as to how they specifically intend to proceed with this plan, and perhaps even more importantly, where they will be getting the money from.
some factors that might put things in perspective:
1. DepEd, I think, won’t be demanding 12 years straightaway… there will be a couple of transition years which means we won’t need to spend this much right from the onset.
2. with more students enrolled, the current unit costs should go lower, if we follow economies of scale. we’ll still be spending billions however haha
let’s just look at the money that will be spent as investments rather than expenses.
and another thing, maybe this program can justify a big increase in our education budget? we’re spending a paltry sum on education as it is; i’m sure if the administration wants to prioritize education, they’ll ensure that DepEd gets a bigger slice of the pie this time around.
that’s right! let’s just look at the money that will be spent as investments rather than expenses.
the current 10 year curriculum is imperfect and definitely below par, adding 2 more years will not raise the standards, it will only lengthen the problem. the government should fix that problem together with planning on adding 2 more years.
i do not have the specific numbers yet but i think it is safe to assume that the high drop out rate affects the poor much more than the rich. the reason why they drop out in large numbers is poverty. in other words the poor as a group is undereducated while the rich’s education is full and complete.
2 more years will be added to curriculum of public schools (while private schools may decide on their own), that means that will affect the poor as group. at the moment only a small percentage of the poor finish grade 10 because of poverty. if there are already very few among the poor finish grade 10, there will certainly be even less who can finish grade 12.
in my view, the key problems of public education in the country is not lack of years in the curriculum, they are – poor quality of teaching, lack of schools/classrooms and high drop out rates due to poverty.
it begs the question – what are we trying to solve here? have we properly identified the real problems? are these the correct solutions?
Increasing the # of years from 10 to 12 doesn’t just mean increasing by 2 years our already substandard curriculum. It might already be the beginning of the improvements to our curriculum that this country needs. Please refer to this article: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100813-286660/10-plus-2-is-not-equal-to-12.
High drop out rates do affect the poor more than the rich. And, like you said, a lot of those dropouts are motivated by financial reasons, i.e. lack of funds for schooling, need to provide economic assistance to family, health, etc. Public schools, by definition and in theory, are supposed to be free. However, we know that this is rarely the case in practice (uniforms, baon, materials for school projects are all charged to the parents) and it is true that a lot of students drop out because of this. Raising the economic well-being of Filipino families as well as making sure that schools/teachers do not charge their students unnecessarily will help in this regard (i believe allocating more of the budget to education and to schools will help curb this practice).
However it is also true that financial reasons aren’t the only reason poor students drop out of school. I used to be involved in a school that catered to students from “squatter areas,” and the number 1 reason students stop schooling, especially in the younger years, is the lack of parental support (even if the majority of the mothers are stay-at-home moms). We were able to (partially) address this when we started communicating with the parents the importance of education and empowering them to be their children’s primary educators. This is also due to poverty, since for poor families education rarely brings with it tangible benefits in the short run. If the parents are on-board and are convinced that a good education is important for their children, they become motivated to ensure that their children continue on with their schooling and become more active in teaching their children at home.
The proposed 12 year school system includes a preschool program. People tend to overlook just how important early childhood education or ECE is. Studies have shown that children who were enrolled in preschool are more likely to complete their education than those who weren’t. This is because ECE provides the foundation for further learning and instills the proper disposition for learning during the ages when our minds are most receptive to it. A student who starts late (grade 1), was born in a family that does not value education (was not taught his ABCs at home), is at a disadvantage once he starts formal education. Students tend to drop out because they cannot keep up anymore… hence education loses all meaning.
Add to that the fact that, in our current setup, we are educating a lot of our students on a half-day basis, cramming supposedly 12 years of knowledge into 10 years, with the modes of instruction in both Filipino and English (while some foreign students only stick to 1 language). That’s what makes it substandard.
Surprised Wawam has not written any article about his candidate. The failure of the Aquino Administration! Like I said its your candidate…you voted for him. He is slowly showing his true nature. The sad part he will drag every Filipino citizen and the whole country with him with his trial and error type of leadership.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2010/08/24/sot.gordon.red.cross.bus.cnn.html
mag aral ka mag isa mo!!! ok lang sana kung dadagdagan ng 2 more yr lvl kung ka.u ang mag papa aral, gagastos sa mga kailangan, at gagawa ng project/activity namin… bakt ung iba 10 yr education natapos nila bakt naging prof cla? at ngaun ang pangit na mag aral ung mga teacher d na nag lelection puro nalang pagawa ng activity, report, tsaka project lang ya impyerno na yan!!!!!!!
Teachers now a days should not do lecture type in classroom but instead discussion or more on collaboration work. Grabe ka naman mag react. Individual or group activity is really good for the students it considered the different multiple intelligence of the students. Project is another way of assessment to know if the students learned something throughout the grading period unless kung yung project had nothing to do or not related to the subject matter like giving books to donate the library.
group projects have a built in weakness – it’s very difficult if not impossible to get an accurate reading of individual performance. group projects tend to be fair to a few but unfair to most.
This is not really the real topic if you all are talking about the poverty of the philippines toward the additional 2 years in basic education because you are already contradicting your self because if its the facilities, the teachers, the books, the classrooms and etc. is the proof that you didn’t talk about the number 7 in p.noy’s ten point agenda that states that “Assistance to private schools as essential partners in basic education” simply means that the government will support private schools regarding facilities and etc
And about public schools i like wawams qoute hehe
lets face it, the rich and poor divide also applies to philippine education. the rich and the poor do get very different types of education including the two very different benefits.
there is no way the poor is getting the same kind of education than the rich just on the basis of the conditions of the classrooms the public schools can.
i’m just 15 years old so correct me if i am wrong.
WHY VOTE FOR NOYNOY IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SO MANY DOUBT HIM!
this is likely a better topic, right?
I think i gradually agree on what DepEd want to progress about this issue. Of course, all of us are surprised when it was released but if we think more about its advantages, we will realize what all the benefits we may received from it. Like it is more adjustable for us to have another 2 year knowledge but i cant deny the fact that some didn’t like this opinion. I also respect it but estimating it, may be it is the best way to improve the knowledge of the students who belong in the next generation.
for me, go go to additional 2 years because it is not about the quantity it is about the quality, the knowledge that pupils may get and besides many graduate students don’t pass the interviews in what companies they may want to apply on because of lack of knowledge and not being ready in facing the real word, and so, it is really important just to be that students will be ready at work.
the problems of the philippine educational system are pretty basic – lack of classrooms, books and equiptment and competent teachers. add to that the fact that most of the population are poor and cannot afford to send their children to school even if tuition is free.
with those very basic things as huge problems, adding 2 more years to schooling will not help anything. it will instead make things worst.
Adding Two more years to Basic Education Will Further Widen the Rich and Poor Divide.
The title of the article itself is already enough to catch my attention. It is not only because I am one of the poor citizens who would possibly be affected by this proposal but also because I am taking up a course that meant a lifetime commitment on fighting the advocacy for quality education. I was really saddened while reading this article because the problems that the author stated was so clear, so harsh, but so true. Yes, we can never really deny the fact that we do have lots of problems on our education system.
The additional two more years to basic education is one of the biggest issues for the year 2010. In this article, it clearly implied that the writer is not in favor of adding two more years to our 10-year curriculum education; and that it will only widen the rich and poor divide. His opinion was strengthened by the problems he had stated. The rich will become richer for they are the only ones who can afford the additional two years, moreover, the higher quality education. In contrast, the poor will become poorer for until now, they can’t even afford the 10-year curriculum, how much more is the 12-year?However, I would like to oppose his opinion that the additional two years to our basic education is not the answer to our poor quality education. It is said that most Asian countries are now using the 12-year curriculum, and most of those countries have achieved higher quality education.
The author mentioned one problem that, I think, aside from corruption, is one of the root causes of poor quality education – too many students. In short, population.
Assume that your a father of 5 children who’s just earning P5,000 per month, do you think it would be a smooth sailing for you and your family? Ofcourse not. According to research, most poor couples are raising more than five children. Imagine? If you can hardly feed your own mouth, then why add more mouth to be fed? Isn’t the logic very simple? I hate to say this but, can’t they help themselves from having sex with their partners? Is it really hard for them to sacrifice their sexual needs, considering that it’s already for the alleviation of their own lives?
It’s time for the government to take major action on our not-so-terrifying-but-alarming population growth (since most of our people are not so willing to cooperate and do some sacrifices).Let us not blame only the government for this. We, people, should do our part,too.
I am a teacher for almost 10 years in public school and from that time that I started teaching, I had a big realization that there are really many problems in our education system in the Philippines that I wasn’t aware of(especially the students interest because everyday it is a struggle to make them interested in your lesson and I don’t know if their parents are still concern with their kid’s education or just being lame with a passing grade of 75);. But I don’t think that the additional two years will widened the bridge between the poor and the rich people. If the government will implement the K-12 system, the high school students are likely to be 18 years old or older for them to finish the basic schooling system. By that time they can easily have a job, since 18 years old is considered as legal age in the Philippines to be able to work, pay taxes, have work benefits and at the same time, they are more matured compare to the students who graduated when they were just 16. Isn’t it good that the government will shoulder the additional two years instead of the poor parents since we cant turn blind to the worsening cases of poverty, and it is one of the issues here is: where will the parent get the additional money for that two years, not everybody can pay their tuition fees while waiting to be 18 and approximately the tuition fees for a vocational courses ranges from Php. 5,000- 20,000, and in college courses, you have to make it double for two years waiting time.( those are private school fees by the way, coz there’s only a minimal percentage of passing in SUC’s) If they graduated at the age of 16, what will these students do if they didn’t have money to study in college or even vocational courses? In the span of two years, the students will likely be pregnant, married without stable job ( mostly just live with their parents/ relatives) drug addicts, “tambay” and since they are not doing anything, the little knowledge that they gain will just likely go to “ I don’t know where.”(Hopefully it will be a stock knowledge). Let’s face it, there will be likely 5 – 10% graduate of high school that can land a job but the salary that they will get is not the standard pay and most likely they didn’t have benefits as well. That’s the scenario every now and then. And I think that, it is much better to implement the K-12 system.
Another good thing, when we look globally, we are competitive enough when it comes to the basic school system and hopefully it will be advantageous to us. What I fear from these additional two years is the subjects that the students will learn. I hope that the Department of Education will really look into the curriculum along with the real pillars of education, of course the teachers into “WHAT DO THE STUDENTS NEEDS, WHAT ARE THE SOCIETY NEEDS, THE BUSINESS SECTORS NEEDS LOCALLY AND GLOBALLY AND HOW CAN WE COMPETE.”
“after the K-12, students can already look for jobs” – that is one of the major problems i have with the k-12 system.
the k-12 system seem to be premised on a very defeatist goal – assume students will just want to be high school graduates so that they can immediately find jobs. it does not want to aim high, it aims for what is low and the easy way out. the thinking, philosophy or core reason for it is tragically flawed.
educational systems to me are supposed to aim high, aim for the best, not for the least.
and let us be realistic about it – will companies really want to hire high school graduates? there are college graduates, why will they hire high school graduates even if they had 12 years of it? companies know that the whole system is flawed at 10 years, adding 2 more years without addressing the basic and core problems of the educational system (read article/post, above) will not magically produce miracles. all that it will do is add 2 more years of bad education to the original 10 year bad education.
, ok to the additional two years in elementary and secondary, Because i think to inprob the knowlegde of the children and Beheveor,,
So where do we get funds to subsidize additional 2 years when presently, we can’t afford to subsidize the present education cycle?
lang ya naman ohh!!! binebigyan nyu lang kame ng sakt sa olu kung dadagdagan nyu pa ng yr lvl ang HS postahan ta.u marami ang magiging Tambay sa pag dagdag ny ng yr lvl dadami ang ma hihinto nyan lalo pa ung mga mahihirap!!! mag isep naman ka.u!!!! my iba nga jan 4 th yr d pa matapos dahil sa kakulangan ng pera paano na kaya kung gawing 6th yr na.. no gagawin namn kakapit sa patalim?
ngayon pa nga lang nahihirapan na, hindi pa natutugunan ang mga pangangailangan sa skul, classroom.books etc.panu naq kaya kung dadagdagan pa! problema na nman……
dapat ang unahin ntin ay…ung pangunahing pangangailangan ng mamayan…..un nalang muna ang pagtuonang pansin ntin,
Are there any positive outcomes if this takes place? Is it beneficial? If yes, please give examples.
although mahirap ang panahon ngayon pro kapakanan ng gobyerno ang matugunan ang pangngangailangan ng mga estudyante dahil makikita nating halos lahat ng estudyante kahit nkatapos nah ng highschool eh nahihirapan pang sumagot sa mga basic questions sa mga major subjects kaya sa tingin koh kailangan natin ito..
The proposition is good however if we are going to analyze all its factors, I cud say that 2 years additional to basic education is not an appropriate solution to maximize students’ potentials. poverty is one of the big challenge for this proposal. Let us consider those who are financially unstable families, those who are studying out of people’s donations.many pupils go to school with an empty stomach, doesn’t have school materials and proper uniform.pupils who live in far flung areas by walking or swimming for long dangerous hours and trails just to get into a school?adding 2years wud be a torture for them.2nd, there are many students who cut their classes and gamble because of lack of proper guidance and support from their family and teachers. In my opinion, instead of finding solutions to enhance the situation, why not look for strategies to improve the current system?we are already aware of the problems in our present educational system, is the govt addressing those problems? maybe some but not religiously substantial for long term purposes. Why not creating new strategies to make the curriculum effective and dynamic?to have an effective and careful assessments if the strategies has an effective positive results?if not, try to create another strategies for every school year. why dont we work to supply the needed things to improve education? The govt should be more focused on improving the system, to allocate sufficient national budget for Deped, observe equality and transparency on everything and eradicate politics and personal interests to avoid corruptions.The govt must enhance and provide the basic necessities of education like neutral processing on teachers’ applications, hiring competitive Teachers,salaries and incentives, proper usage of school’s fundings observing check and balance for school operations and fundings, conducting trainings for employees, adequate updates on international educational trends, sufficient supply of school materials and technological equipments, strict performance assessment on the prevailing strategies, teachers and students,school buildings that are conducive and accessible to the pupils and students, an advance curriculum starting on kinder/prep level so that they have an advance learning as they reach the higher levels,Outright response by the school management on problems to avoid more complex implications in the future, to have responsibility shares among the gov’t agencies such as the LGU and DSWD to handle problems that a student experiences on their family, to monitor activities, to have a frequent visitations to get the students’ performance and behavior (of course with the coordination of the school management), to counsel students and parents if they have conflicts,give assistance such as for transportation, feedings, community involvement of the schools, utilizing NGOs who give additional assistance, mandate gov’t agencies to always be ready to assist anytime and anywhere. If these agencies failed to perform their duties well, they should face an investigations and consequences for their negligence.
Let the 2yrs become and enhancement course to develop skills and prepare them to be competitive in outside world.It will be helpful on secondary or tertiary levels. Why? because these are the stage where students could make their own decisions depending on their current life situation. 2yrs for secondary level to compulsory learn vocational courses or skill depending on their interests so that when they graduated or undecided if could still continue in collage, they are already equipped with skills that they could use to earn for living. For tertiary level, the compulsory additional 2yrs may serve as volunteer status/OJT in any gov’t agencies or private establishment for them to be more competitive in applying for a job since that many companies are looking for well-experienced applicants locally and abroad. The school should ensure that the students has acquired and passed the volunteer status using high standard assessments to qualify for the graduation.There should be no additional charges or tuition required on part of the parents instead,the school management should scout good companies and endorse students.The govt should mandate the private entities to provide students volunteer jobs on their company or else the owner/s will receive obligatory punishments as compliance on the community responsibility and commitment law for private sectors.