click to read pdf file —> Poverty-Philippines-Causes-Constraints-Opportunities
source : ADB website : http://bit.ly/ulR9RP
poverty is an endemic problem in the country and one that many previous administrations tried to fix but failed. that apparently includes the current aquino administration.
the aquino admin likes to say they are pro-poor and are dead serious in alleviating poverty. this survey results tell us the aquino admin better get their programs in place and running and hopefully effective.
but that will be asking too much. unfortunately the next quarterly survey of SWS on hunger will probably be even worst than this for the following reasons:
- toll fees are on the rise
- public transport fares (bus, jeepney, train, taxi) on the rise
- NFA rice has been increased
- bread prices on the rise
- gas prices are rising (always)
- power costs increasing
- jobs still hard to find
- US$ depreciating - remittances will get hit
the above will surely boost inflation and with not enough new jobs around, incomes will continue to be scarce and hunger will rise even more.
Hunger again rising
Yearend SWS survey estimates 3.4M families affected
HUNGER HAS GONE UP among Filipino families after declining for most of last year even as the number of households that consider themselves mahirap or poor basically stayed the same, a new Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey found.
A Nov. 27-30 SWS poll, the results of which were made exclusive to BusinessWorld, had 18.1% of the respondents — or an estimated 3.4 million families — claiming to have gone hungry in the last three months because they lacked anything to eat.
This was up from the 2010 low of 15.9% (3.0 million families) recorded last September and — given the 21.2% in March and 21.1% in June — was slightly below the 19.1% average for the year.
It was also four points over the 12-year average of 13.7%, the SWS noted, but still far from the record high of 24% hit in December 2009. The record low is 7.4%, hit in March 2004.
Some 9.2 million families or 49% of the respondents, meanwhile, considered themselves poor, barely changed from September’s 48%. Over a third — 36% or an estimated 6.7 million households — considered themselves food-poor, down from 38% previously.
Government officials blamed higher food prices in the last quarter of 2010 and noted the need to deliver on promises to reduce poverty.
The rise in overall hunger, the SWS said, was due to a two-point increase in moderate hunger — experiencing it “only once” or “a few times” in the last three months — to 15% or an estimated 2.8 million families. Those not stating their frequency of hunger are included in this category.
Severe hunger — experiencing it “often” or “always” — remained at 3.1% or 588,000 families.
Overall hunger rose in all areas except in the Visayas where it stayed at 15.3%. It increased by nearly four points in the Balance of Luzon to 18.3%, almost two points in Mindanao to 18% and a point in Metro Manila to 21.7%.
Moderate hunger was up in all geographical areas: to 16% from 13.3% in Mindanao, 14.7% from 12.3% in the Balance of Luzon, to 17.7% from 15.7% in Metro Manila and to 12.7% from 11.7% in the Visayas.
Severe hunger rose by over a point to 3.7% in the rest of Luzon but fell by an identical amount in Mindanao (2.0%) and the Visayas (2.7%). It fell by nearly a point in Metro Manila to 4.0%.
read in full here: http://www.bworld.com.ph/main/content.php?id=24243
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?