The chairman of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has declared that “flexible learning”—which relies on digital content and internet-based interactions—will be the way forward even after the COVID-19 pandemic has run its course, sparking an angry response from students who have been struggling with online classes.
“From now on, flexible learning will be the norm. There’s no going back to the traditional full-packed face-to-face classrooms,” CHED Chairman Prospero de Vera III declared during an online seminar last week. “The commission has adopted the policy that flexible learning will continue in school year 2021 and thereafter.”
De Vera said CHED adopted the policy as they don’t want to “run the risk exposing… educational stakeholders to the same risk if another pandemic comes.”
Aside from this, De Vera said that going back to the traditional face-to-face classes would waste the “investments in technology, teachers’ training, and retrofitting” of facilities.”
The CHED chairman quickly drew criticism from youth groups.
National Union of Students of the Philippines national president Jandeil Roperos said the new policy would worsen the financial, mental and emotional hardships that confront students with flexible learning. It would also “jeopardize the quality education that is their right,” she said.
“Face-to-face classes remain to be the most inclusive and accessible option for education. If CHED wishes to pursue prolonged flexible learning, do they at least give gadget and connection assistance to those in need?” she said in a statement.
She also said the barrage of calls from students for academic breaks reflects how exhausting and unsustainable the current set-up in learning is.
The Kabataan Party-list described the new policy as a “gross negligence of duty to the education sector.”
“Teachers and students struggle with lacking internet infrastructure and modular learning,” the group said.
It also called on the commission to “support calls to provide student and teacher subsidies and to allocate funding for the safe return to face-to-face classes.”
Kabataan Rep. Sarah Elago said not all students and teachers “have adjusted to the current learning set-up which is still far from flexible.”
“It has taken a toll on students and teachers’ health and well-being as they struggle with online classes, experiencing stress and anxiety amid the health and economic crises,” she said in a Twitter post.
So what is flexible learning?
Draft guidelines on the CHED website state that flexible learning “involves the use of digital and non-digital technology, and covers both face-to-face/in-person learning and out-of-classroom learning modes of delivery or a combination of modes of delivery.”
Flexible learning, the draft guidelines add, “ensures the continuity of inclusive and accessible education when the use of traditional modes of teaching is not feasible, as in the occurrence of national emergencies.” But in his eagerness to promote flexible learning, it seems, the CHED chairman has overlooked this phrase from the CHED’s own draft guidelines.
The problems with online learning have been well documented throughout this pandemic. Students from poor families don’t have the digital devices required, and internet service is unreliable, even to students who can afford broadband connections.
But in his remarks, the CHED chairman seems to be blissfully unaware of any of these problems.
The CHED chairman also seems to be unaware that there are commonsense health precautions that can be taken to prevent the spread of infections in face-to-face classes.
It also seems illogical to argue that returning to face-to-face classes would waste “investments in technology, teachers’ training, and retrofitting” of facilities.” These were investments that needed to be made to keep the educational system functioning during the pandemic. To the extent that they did, these investments have already paid off. If a country invests in bomb shelters during a war, do we say that these resources were wasted when peace returns?
Finally, regardless of what anyone says about the benefits of online learning, there is no substitute to the real human connection and engagement that teachers can have with their students in face-to-face classes. From this perspective, face-to-face classes should be the preferred mode of learning, rather than a system that, at least in the CHED chairman’s view, we ought not return.
Touting flexible learning is making a virtue out of a necessity. We need flexible learning during a pandemic—that does not, in itself, make it a virtue.