Today, I stand before you as the negative speaker to argue against the proposition that the newly

proposed deped matatag basic education curriculum should be implemented. The MATATAG Curriculum
has the inability to provide students with concrete learnings. Furthermore, the comprehension of
students with what the curriculum will provide would be much more lower than before.

The Department of Education (DepEd) received a petition to halt the introduction of the new Matatag
Kindergarten to Grade 10 (K-10) curriculum on Friday by the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT)
Philippines. Raymond Basilio, secretary general of ACT, stated in a press conference that a democratic
and thorough engagement with stakeholders was not conducted before implementing the new
curriculum.

Niel Jayson Servallos of Philippine Star (2023), wrote an article in which it states a teachers’ group wants
the Department of Education (DepEd) to stop its implementation of the revised Grade 1 to 10
curriculum dubbed “MATATAG” and instead consult education stakeholders for “a relevant and
responsive curriculum.” The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) conscripted the DepEd’s
implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum “premature,” where they implements an equally
"problematic" curriculum in a different innovative education plan for educators and pupils following the
launch of the K–12 programme in 2012. The ACT stated that, “Just like in the implementation of K-12 in
2012, it is disheartening that after more than a decade, the DepEd would tell the public that an
implemented curriculum is problematic"

Dr. Darrel M. Ocampo, a professor in Central Bicol State University of Agriculture disclosed that
implementing the new curriculum brings challenges that must be managed carefully. The substantial
training required of teachers is a serious concern. switching from the K–12 system to the cutting-edge
teaching techniques of the Matatag curriculum. and transdisciplinary curriculum necessitates thorough
teacher preparation. Insufficient training may jeopardise the standard of instruction provided.
Stakeholders, including teachers, parents, and students, may be attached to the familiar K to 12 system,
resisting uncertainties linked to the new curriculum. This opposition could impede the implementation
process, postponing the changeover and making it less successful. Furthermore, there could be some
short-term disturbances to the educational system if the Matatag curriculum is implemented. The
procedure can call for modifying the classroom environment, creating new evaluation techniques, and
revising the instructional materials. These modifications may cause instructors and students to become
temporarily confused, which could lower the standard of instruction provided while things are changing.
It also offers difficulties that need to be navigated carefully.
According to Philippine Daily Inquirer (2023) The DepEd also knows that Filipino students struggle with
reading in English. DepEd Memorandum No. 173, series of 2019, states: “Low achievement levels in
English, Math and Science appear to be caused by gaps in learners’ reading comprehension. This means
there are many low-performing learners who [cannot] comprehend Math and Science word problems
that [are] written in English.” In contrast to the K–12 curriculum, which introduces the English reading
competency in the second semester of Grade 2, the Department of Education's (DepEd) "Matatag"
curriculum begins the competency in the first semester of Grade 2. However, since Filipino kids would
be reading in the test language a year later than their foreign counterparts, the schedule almost ensures
that they will continue to rank worst in international exams. Since English is required to be the primary
language of instruction in all international assessments, as stated in DepEd Order No. 29, series of 2017,
and because the Matatag curriculum keeps English as the primary language of instruction starting in
Grade 4, English also serves as our test language in these assessments. The international practice is for
schoolchildren to be taught to read in their primary medium of instruction in Grade 1, with most
children in Vietnam, Japan, and Singapore already able to read in Grade 1. However, the Matatag
curriculum defers English and Filipino reading competencies to Grade 2 to give way to developing first
language literacy in Grade 1. The DepEd justifies prioritizing the first language by citing a World Bank
(WB) finding that literacy in the first language “promotes learning outcomes in the L1 and in the
subsequent second language (L2), as well as in other academic subjects, and promotes the development
of general cognitive abilities.” In giving credence to the WB study, the DepEd disregards two compelling
local historical facts: First, since the time of the American occupation until the DepEd scrapped the “No
Read, No Move” policy in 2001, Filipino children have been successfully taught to read in English in
Grade 1. They also started learning English the moment they entered first grade, and were
unquestionably more proficient in English than the products of the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual
Education (MTB-MLE), which exclusively teaches first language literacy in Grade 1. The DepEd overlooks
two important local historical realities in favour of the WB study. First, Filipino children have been
successfully taught to read in English starting in Grade 1 from the American occupation until the DepEd
abandoned the "No Read, No Move" policy in 2001. They also began learning English as soon as they got
into first grade, and they definitely knew the language better than students who participated in Mother
Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), which only teaches literacy in the first language to
students in Grade 1. Second, from its launch in School Year 2012-2013 until now, the MTB-MLE has been
a total failure as detailed in the letter “Use of first language or mother tongue does not work in the
Philippines” (Inquirer, 9/5/23). Please note that the letter has not been refuted. The DepEd also knows
that Filipino students struggle with reading in English. DepEd Memorandum No. 173, series of 2019,
states: “Low achievement levels in English, Math and Science appear to be caused by gaps in learners’
reading comprehension. This means there are many low-performing learners who [cannot] comprehend
Math and Science word problems that [are] written in English.” DepEd Secretary Leonor Briones
acknowledged that "reading in English is clearly a weakness of our learners" in her briefing on the
nation's performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), titled "Situating
PISA with Sulong EduKalidad." It goes without saying that the realities outlined in DepEd Memorandum
No. 173 and by Briones would have been significantly minimised had our students been reading in
English starting in Grade 1. And yet in defiance of logic and historical facts, here we are, a tailender in
international assessments, obstinately insisting that our students should learn to read in the test
language (English) a year later than children of other countries. Given the strong correlation between
performance in reading and success or failure in academics as cited in OECD’s “Reading for change:
Performance and engagement across countries,” report, the one-year gap in reading experience in the
test language is insurmountable. While the Matatag curriculum is still being pilot tested, the DepEd
should be made to explain how the curriculum could fulfill the mandate of Section 2 (a) of the Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2013 on offering “quality education that is globally competitive” to our students,
when it imposes a one-year reading handicap on them vis-à-vis their counterparts from other countries.

With extremely short periods of time for instruction, the curriculum required teachers to cover an
overwhelming amount of learning competencies. Lessons and other school-related responsibilities
overwhelmed both teachers and students. The outcome was disastrous for our students. Insisting that
the establishment of the MATATAG Curriculum is timely, DepEd Undersecretary Gina Gonong (2023)
pointed out that it is not about the number of competencies but selecting the important ones that
learners need to master. Gonong also explained that if the teacher rushes to teach because there are a
lot of competencies, children will not learn. So, their skills that should be developed will not be
developed. So, when it comes to assessments, they will not be able to show that they can succeed in
international and our national assessments.