Jump to content

Talk:Education in the Philippines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

American vists

What is the documentation that shows Americans as going to the PI for schooling other than the normal international student exchange? That would seem a bit counter intuitive.Lightertack (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of frameworks/standards

Surprisingly, an 'encyclopedic article' on Philippine education without any mention of the Revised Basic Education Curriculum, which is the standards in use at present. --222.127.232.251 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


i dont see how the education system is similar to the usa's. there is not "6-7" years of primary school. it's 6. then 4 more in high school, for a sad total of 10. the philippines is one of only 2 nations that dont provide 12 yrs of undergrad education. 124.106.148.64 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpful website

There seems to be some interest about this forum: http://eduphil.org/ --210.213.194.35 (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reputable university section is biased

Since the term itself is subjective, the entire "reputable university section" is absolutely worthless, and embarrassing to the Philippines. 121.97.211.31 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


I've reworked the section into a section on international rankings, since this is the only part of the section that actually has citations that allow for discussion and balance. The final paragraph of the former section, which listed "reputable" schools in different regions, has been deleted for the moment. This hopefully eliminates most, if not all of the perceived bias in the section.Rmcsamson (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:St. Vincent Bldg.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rankings and leagues tables

The 2007 survey by CHED et al was for the period 1999 to 2005. This is not a ten year period as stated in the prior edit, and differs from the period specified in the earlier edit. In addition a tabulated top 20 ranking list is more readily readable than a dense text format. I am not a graduate of any of those Higher Education Institutions so do not have any alma mater axe to grind - only a bolo. Gubernatoria (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it to the previous edit with changes. The source cited in the edit you left (www.eskwelahan.com) does not reflect the list you made, nor the claim that you make about the 2007 survey being for the period 1999 to 2005. The citation in the edit I'm making was published in 2007, making reference to a study conducted every 10 years. There is no source provided saying the period covered was 1999 to 2005. As for the format, the dense listing makes sense because it's the only way to reasonably accommodate those who were included in the ranking while not having to engage in drawing up lists that are both unnecessarily long but are also no longer reasonably effective in making the point intended by the section. This is why the choice was to list the top 10. As for readability, compressing the list into a paragraph form works because it is not intended to make an exhaustive list, but a reflective one that makes the necessary point, and also because it does not make the article unnecessarily long to read in terms of scrolling down to get information that can be condensed into a paragraph. Rmcsamson (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the section on the QS 2009 University Rankings to a previous version that does not engage in making an unnecessarily long list. I've restored the subheading, I see how it's helpful.Rmcsamson (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The heading for the "QS 2009 top Asian universities" is too small. I understand the font size is system-formatted. I'm thinking of creating a separate category for the "QS 2009 Top Asian Universities Rankings" to remedy this situation. Any other opinion? I shall proceed in making the change if there are no objections or suggestions.Thinkinggecko (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can eliminate the separate section/category altogether. The QS 2009 Asian Rankings are just another league table anyway. Rmcsamson (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, I incorporated the QS Asian University Rankings into the main sub-category for the different International rankings considering that, as you mentioned, it's just but one of many league tables already stated. This seems to be the right solution to the previous situation.Thinkinggecko (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Level IV Accreditation

CHED permits Level IV accreditation for programs. CHED does not authorise Level IV accreditation for institutions. If anyone can find a CHED CMO to the contrary I will apologise. Otherwise, CHED CMO 2005-01 Article IV (e) stands as the authority. DLSU-Manila and Ateneo may well have been granted institutional accreditation, but it cannot be Level IV institutional accreditation. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the PAASCU website [1] Level IV accreditation for DLSU-M expired April 2008. So quoting the PAASCU website is no help in asserting DLSU-M has institutional accreditation. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the PAASCU website [2] Level IV accreditation for ADMU expired May 2009. So quoting the PAASCU website is no help in asserting Ateneo Manila has institutional accreditation either. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gubernatoria. I appreciate the additions made, as they certainly help clarify the matter. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the CHED CMO and the pertinent provision in question, although I agree that it is the authority. Your interpretation (which you have written into the article, if I may point out), is that CHED "does not authorise" Level IV accreditation for institutions. While it is true that there is no explicit provision governing levels of institutional accreditation, it does not mean that granting accreditation levels for institutions (which in turn is based on program accreditation among other requirements) is disallowed. To say that there is no authorization would mean that there is a negative imposition, one that bars in clear terms any such grant. There is none. And since it is quite plain that the intent of the CHED CMO is to recognize schools which have achieved a level of performance appropriate to a given level, then we cannot simply discount awards such as those given to both the Ateneo de Manila University and to De La Salle University, which were never repudiated by either the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines or by CHED. And since point is raised as to whether or not these two schools actually received Level IV institutional accreditation, the fact of the matter is that they did, and there are two things to look at: First, PAASCU itself listed the grants of Level IV accreditation as institutional accreditation. Which means that these two schools WERE granted the said accreditation at the institutional level. Second, note that the grants were not made under CHED CMO 2005-01, but CHED Order No. 31, s. 1995, which refers to Level IV accreditation as accreditation accorded to institutions (see Art. 2.b.4), with De La Salle University receiving the award in 2001 and the Ateneo de Manila University in 2004. The point in the article is not whether these two schools still have Level IV institutional accreditation, but whether or not they were granted the accreditation in the first place.
As a proposed solution, a sentence or short paragraph pointing out the following things can be added, or the following revisions made: First, acknowledging that the two schools mentioned were granted Level IV accreditation, the first two in the country, and the only two given Level IV accreditation. Second, pointing out that the accreditation given was Level IV institutional accreditation, as clearly shown in the PAASCU website. Third, further pointing out that the accreditations were given pursuant to CHED Order No. 31, series of 1995, since the DLSU was given Level IV accreditation in 2001 and the Ateneo in 2004. Fourth, pointing out that these awards have expired, and that prior to their expiration, CHED promulgated CHED CMO 1-2005 in February 2005, which superseded CHED Order 31 s. 1995, but which did not negate the earlier grants given to both schools mentioned. Finally, that CHED CMO 1-2005 only provides for program accreditation, whereas Art. II(3) therein provides that for institutional accreditation, "the guidelines and standards shall be formulated..." meaning there are no clear guidelines for whether or not the prior grant of Level IV institutional accreditation is something to be expected in the future.
I believe this proposed solution is a workable compromise that incorporates your astute observations and interpretation and which clarifies them in light of the other materials I have cited. Rmcsamson (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Rmcsamson. Excellent solution. Thank you for your gentle, scholarly, eirenical approach. Please implement as you suggest, if you so wish.
Just as an aside, since the DLSU-M and Ateneo-M accreditations have expired, does this mean that TUA is the only HEI with current institutional accreditation in the Philippines? It could be a poor reflection on higher education in the Philippines, if that is the case. Gubernatoria (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Gubernatoria. I'll try to work out the proper implementation over the next few days. Just a bit swamped with work now. As for the DLSU and Ateneo accreditations expiring, yes I think they have. But I guess that's a normal thing, and I guess we shouldn't discount the possibility that both are working for re-accreditation. Rmcsamson (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CMO 52 of 2006 introduced Autonomous and Deregulated status. I suppose that obviates the need for DLSU and Ateneo to reapply for institutional accreditation. Presumably that makes institutional accreditation a stepping stone towards deregulated and then later autonomous status. Keep well... Gubernatoria (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Autonomous Institutions

At the moment there are 44 autonomous HEIs in the Philippines. In case anyone objects, the out-of-date partial list of autonomous institutions I just removed from the article in favour of CHED's most up-to-date list, is archived here. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC). These include the following:

5 years, 11 March 2009 to 30 March 2014 [1][2][3]

5 years, 27 October 2003 to 30 March 2008

  • University of the Immaculate Conception, Davao City

5 years, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2012 [4]

1 year, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2008 [4]

References

  1. ^ Memorandum: ADZU Granted Autonomous Status By CHED
  2. ^ SU NetNews: CHED Grants Silliman Autonomous Status. Accessed July 31, 2009.
  3. ^ OLFU News on 5/20/2009: CHED Grants OLFU Autonomous Status. Accessed September 21, 2009.
  4. ^ a b CHED Memorandum Order No. 59, Series of 2007. Last accessed 30 October 2008.

Deregulated Institutions

In case anyone objects to the update of this section and the deletion of the obsolete information previously in the article, the deleted info is archived below. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

''5 years, 11 March 2009 to 30 March 2014

5 years, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2012

1 year, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2008

Instructional languages

The second paragraph of the lead summarizes this, citing DepEd Order 74 of 2009, Institutionalizing Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MLE). The third paragraph of the Primary school section has several {{fact}} tagged assertions regarding languages of instruction which appear to contradict that previously-cited supporting source. Someone who knows more about this topic than I probably ought to take a look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this Wtmitchell. I've made an attempt to improve that section to meet the facts and to provide references. Unfortunately, some material is unsupported because no studies have been attempted of "foundational language" usage in primary schools in the Philippines. It is too large a topic for doctoral research in the Philippines, and is not on the agenda for DepEd or CHED. Except for the Lubuagan pilot project, local languages are not used in elementary or secondary schools, mainly because teachers come from outside the local language area but usually from within the regional language area, so they use the regional language as the foundational language. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rankings and league tables

The subject of ranking of Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines is somewhat contentious. It also occupies a large amount of space in this article. I suggest it is more appropriate to have a separate article for ranking of HEIs in the Philippines, so the "Mine's Better than Your's" brigade can slog it out there instead of on the main page. If no-one objects within the next 7 days, I propose removing all of the current section, as it is at this moment, and moving it to a new article, while retaining the first paragraph and inserting a Main Article link. I invite contributors not to edit the Rankings and League Tables section of the Education article until the question of moving it or not has achieved consensus. Comments are invited. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of form, you may be right on this one. The section does appear to be a little bit bulky and detailed. But from an educational standpoint, I think it is beneficial in that it gives the reader an immediate view of the different rankings both local and international. I would suggest that we retain the section for now. However, if stability is the concern and it becomes inevitable that more information are going to be added (which may pave the way for edit-warring), then let's move the section as you suggest. Aclarado (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections. Perhaps we can draft a short paragraph for whatever we leave in the section, which will be then linked to the new separate article? Something along the lines that a)there is at present no clear-cut method to rank Philippine universities, b)that certain studies have been commissioned by organizations such as CHED, and c)that some Philippine universities have also been cited in popular rankings and league tables such as the THE-QS rankings. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"There are no set methods for ranking higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. Aside from comparisons in terms of accreditation, autonomy, deregulation, and centers of excellence awarded by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), there have been attempts to rank HEIs based on student performance in licensure board exams conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). PRC and CHED sometimes publish reports of these results. Commercial ranking and league tables have been published which list some Philippine HEIs. The commercial tables are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity. See main article for detailed information."

When we do have agreement, I'd would prefer to wait until 6 January 2010 to insert the agreed short paragraph, because I originally suggested 7 days for consideration. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I recommend capitalizing "Centers of Excellence," adding "and Centers of Development," and mentioning the league tables (the now-defunct Asiaweek Asian University Rankings, the THE-QS World University Rankings, and the QS Asian University Rankings) so that we can link to the appropriate articles. Rmcsamson (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with the draft together with Rmcsamson's recommendations. However, for the last two sentences, I recommend that these be concatenated or linked together for simplicity. Thus: "Commercial rankings and league tables have been published which list some Philippine HEIs, but these are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity." Aclarado (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Main article reference added. Subarticle now changed to agreed format: "There are no set methods for ranking higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. Aside from comparisons in terms of accreditation, autonomy, deregulation, Centers of Excellence, and Centers of Development awarded by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), there have been attempts to rank HEIs based on student performance in licensure board exams conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). PRC and CHED sometimes publish reports of these results. Commercial ranking and league tables have been published, such as the now-defunct Asiaweek Asian University Rankings, the THE-QS World University Rankings, and the QS Asian University Rankings, which list some Philippine HEIs, but these are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity." Gubernatoria (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate facts from opinions

Article should be encyclopedic, not opinionated. The original last paragraph in the first section opined that the mandatory courses in the college curriculum were fit for the high school rather than the tertiaty level. Opinions do not belong in a Wikipedia article; an alternative way to include that "idea," if we're so keen on putting it in, is to clearly state that it's the opinion of one person, which in this case seems to be FAAP president Epitacio Palispis. However, a check of the reference tag points to the education memo order ("3"), which in turn attributes the statement to Dr. Palispis, but there is nothing in this entire article that links to the actual address that he delivered, except the unsupported claim that Dr. Palispis said this-and-that in that supposed address for graduate students that supposedly transpired in June of some year. Therefore, any statement attributable to that address is contestable at best. And I do hope that Dr. Palispis did not share such opinions, because if Dr. Palispis indeed said that the required general education courses belong in high school, resulting in the Philippines not appearing as competitive internationally, his statements show not only a lack of awareness of international education systems (many of which REQUIRE general education courses as well -- the Philippines, in fact, patterned its collegiate curriculum after that of the United States'), but a VERY short-sighted vision of what higher education should be. And that would be too embarrassing to hear from someone of his stature.

Moreover, there are other disturbing items in the paragraph. It attempts to decry why the Philippines is not a big supplier of degrees to overseas students. Whoever said that the Philippine educational system was supposed to serve overseas students to begin with? Aren't degrees in the Philippines supposed to serve Filipinos first and foremost, not foreigners? It is having ridiculous premises such as this (followed by an attack on the Philippine educational system) that contributes to the lack of credibility of articles on the Philippine educational system. I've deleted the paragraph.Arch23 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example of unacceptable editorializing is the caption of the photo of the Philippine Science High School. It should simply identify what is in the photo and not make comments such as "Note the disparity between rural and urban education facilities in the Philippines," which is also inconsistent with the way captions in the other photos are written.Arch23 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

This article BADLY needs proper documentation! EVERY SENTENCE that is not "general knowledge" needs to cite its source; otherwise, it is either fabricated or PLAGIARIZED information that does not belong in ANY publication, especially Wikipedia. Arch23 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the superfluous insertion of pictures into the article, I created an image gallery section to at least remedy the situation; although I think that the better place to really have these pictures would be at the Higher education in the Philippines article. -Aclarado (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Adusv.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Adusv.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:UP-OuezonHall-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UP-OuezonHall-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:UP-OuezonHall-1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Class/Grade schools in the philippiness

must the same than Indonesia and Thailand.

School Indonesia Philippines Thailand
Elementary school 6 year 6 year 6 year
Junior high school 3 year 3 year
(before 4 year)		 3 year
Senior high school 3 year 3 year
(before 2 year)		 3 year

Heavily Outdated

This article makes no mention of the K to 12 program. Seiyko (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

K12 has been delayed

It has not started as per news article www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/482430/news/nation/trillanes-asks-sc-to-stop-k-12-program

" School year 2016-2017 will mark the nationwide implementation of the Grade 11 curriculum, to be followed by the Grade 12 curriculum in school year 2017-2018" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceSchukies (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Best universities

It is wrong that the top universities of country are all foreign universities: UST, Ateneo (Spanish); UP, DLSU (American). There should be at least two real Filipino universities among the top Philippine colleges. Possible candidates are: FEU, MCU, NU, UE, and UM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.109.19 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Tracks

The article says, "There are three choices that are available to be chosen by the students — or the so-called "specific tracks". These are:", then lists four alternatives. I was going to simplify the intro wording to something like "Three choices, termed "specific tracks", are available. These are:" and combine the last two into "Sports and Arts", but when I went looking for sources to confirm this I found http://k12philippines.com/what-students-in-the-philippines-should-know-about-k12/, which says four tracks, and https://www.gov.ph/k-12/comment-page-2/, which says three. I didn't make any change here, but it looks like one is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations (HEI, LUC, SUC, TVI, & more?)

The Use sourceable abbreviations section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations says, "Avoid making up new abbreviations" and "use widely recognised abbreviations". However, this article contains a number of abbreviations (HEI, LUC, SUC, TVI, & more?) which are unexplained, unsourced, and which I, as a reader not familiar with the jargon of education systems, do not recognize. I wa able to source the meaning of HEI here, but the others remain a mystery to me.

These unesplained abbreviations should be expanded (e.g., Higher Education Institutionz (HEIs)) on their initial use in the article body and, if possible, sourced outside of Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

CHED once used the abbreviation "SUC" in one of their press releases. YX1 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article

Hello fellow editors, since I am from the Philippines, I wish to contribute or possibly make some revisions. ThanksLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Second Issue: The Budget

Under the Issues dropdown, The second issue The Budget has not yet been written out, kindly edit that section because it only has "the second" written on it. Luis Pineda PH (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Content rescued from an earlier article version. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced and POV sections

In this edit, I've tagged several sections as Unreferenced and POV. I was tempted to either excise this content or move it here for discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM), but the content has been here in some form since at least this 2016 edit and I'm guessing that it would be generally supportable if put in less polemic/POV and more encyclopedic form. This needs attention by editors more familiar with this topic than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy of grade names

this edit caught my eye. After seeing that, I note that the classification of Grade 6 varied between Junior High School and High School in differently dated tables in the article, and that there seems to be some disconnect between those articles and the WP articles those wikilinks direct to. It seems to me that some clarification is in order here -- perhaps some inline editing or perhaps the addition of clarifying footnotes at appropriate points. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Education_in_the_Philippines/Archive_1&oldid=1169844855"