Philippine Institute

for Development Studies

Surian sa mga Pag-aaral
Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas

Policy Notes
ISSN 1656-5266

No. 2015-06 (March 2015)

K to 12 reform: Implications of adding

Grades 11 and 12 on the higher education
subsector
Rosario G. Manasan

he enactment of the Enhanced Basic

Education Act of 2013 extends the basic
education cycle to include two additional
years at the secondary level (otherwise known
as the K to 12 program). The basic education
program now consists of one year of
kindergarten, six years of elementary
education, and six years of secondary
education, with the latter consisting of four
years of junior high school and two years of
senior high school (Figure 1). It is envisaged
that the K to 12 program will make the
Philippine basic education cycle not only more
comparable internationally but also better
able to prepare students for the workplace and
for higher levels of learning by: (i)
decongesting the existing 10-year curriculum;
(ii) providing students the opportunity to
learn the necessary skills and reach the

employable age to qualify for employment in

the formal sector if they wish to do so; and
(iii) giving students who aspire to go to
higher education more adequate preparation
for college work (NEDA 2011).
This Policy Note does an initial assessment of
the K to 12 programs effects on the supply of
classrooms and teachers vis--vis the
projected demand. It points to some windows
of opportunities that may be considered as
possible solutions, such as allowing higher
education institutions to absorb the additional
demand for places in senior high schools.
Based on the Senior High School Absorptive
Capacity Study carried out under the Asian

PIDS Policy Notes are observations/analyses written by PIDS researchers on certain

policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide useful inputs for
decisionmaking.
The author is senior research fellow at PIDS. The views expressed are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of PIDS or any of the studys sponsors.

Figure 1. Comparison of current basic education cycle and new K to 12 basic education cycle
Entry Age

10

11

12

Program

Kinder

Current

Kinder

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Year 1

Year 2

K to 12

Kinder

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Elementary

13

14

15

Junior High School

Year 3

16

17

Senior High School

Year 4

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Source: Authors compilation

Development Bank Education Improvement

Sector Development Program (EISDP) Project
Preparatory Technical Assistance 2012 (ADB
2012), enrollment in Grade 11 is projected
to equal 1.1 million students in public
senior high schools (SHSs) and 0.4 million
students in private SHSs in school year (SY)
2016/17. Enrollment in SHS, which will
comprise Grades 11 and 12, is then expected
to increase to 2.0 million students in public
schools and 0.7 million students in private
______________
1
Enrollment projections are initially made at the division level
and subsequently aggregated at the regional and national
levels. Enrollments by grade and year for Grades 16
(elementary) and Grades 710 (junior high school or JHS) for
the period 20122020 are calculated by using cohort survival
rates that were derived from actual enrollments for each
division over the SY 2005/06 to SY 2011/12 period. To arrive
at the enrollment projection for Grade 11 in 2016 in each
division, the year-on-year cohort survival rate from Grade 9 to
10 in SY 2009/10 to SY 2011/12 was extrapolated and
applied to the projected number of Grade 10 students in SY
2015/16 (or the survivors of the cohort who entered JHS as
freshmen in SY 2012/13). Similarly, the number of Grade 11
students in SY 2017/18 is obtained by applying the Grade 9
to Grade 10 cohort survival rate over the SY 2009/10 to SY
2010/11 period to the projected number of projected Grade
10 students in SY 2016/17 while the projected number of
Grade 12 students in the same year is obtained by applying
the same cohort survival rate to the projected number of Grade
11 students in 2016. Note that the projected Grade 11
enrollment in SY 2020/21 is based on the cohort that entered
the JHS program as freshmen in SY 2016/17.

PN 2015-06

Policy Notes

schools in SY 2017/18 (Table 1).1 The

projections assume that graduates of public
junior high schools (JHSs) who will proceed
to SHS will stay in public schools, while
graduates of private JHSs who proceed to
SHS will stay in the private sector.
Although some 10,000 classrooms in existing
private JHSs are likely to be available for
the SHS program in SY 2016/17, this still
falls short of the projected demand for SHS
places in the private sector by about 9,000
classrooms (ADB 2012). Meanwhile, if the
Department of Education (DepED) were to
provide the places needed to accommodate
all the students who are projected to enter
public SHSs, it has to build close to 27,000
new classrooms by SY 2016/17 and an
additional 23,812 classrooms by SY 2017/18.
DepED also has to hire close to 46,000 new
teachers in 2016 and some 38,700 more new
teachers for the SHS program in 2017/18
(Table 2). Given these requirements, the
budgetary support needed for the SHS program
is estimated to be equal to PHP 27 billion in
SY 2015/16, PHP 37 billion in SY 2016/17,
PHP 28 billion in SY 2017/18, and an

average of PHP 33 billion over the SY 2018

2020 period (DepED various years).
Fortunately, there is a possible immediate
partial solution. There are available resources
in the higher education sector that can be
harnessed to help DepED ensure that there is
enough supply to meet the demand for SHS
places in SY 2016/17 onwards. With the
addition of two years in the secondary
school cycle in SY 2016/17, public and private
higher education institutions (HEIs) will have
no freshmen students in SY 2016/17, no
freshmen and sophomore students in SY
2017/18, no sophomore and junior students
in SY 2018/19, and no junior and senior

students in SY 2019/20. Thus, HEIs will have

empty places that can be made available for
the SHS students, in the interim at the very
least, because of these missing cohorts in
20162019. Moreover, the reduced teaching
load in general education as a result of the
shifting of about a years worth of general
education courses from the tertiary level to
the senior high school program means that
it is likely that there will be excess capacity
in the HEIs even after the transition years.
In total, it is projected there will be about
860,000 places in public and private HEIs that
may be used for the SHS program in SY 2016/
2017, equivalent to some 21,600 classrooms.

Table 1. Enrollment projectionsa in public and private SHS (20162020) and number of available HEI places
in 2017/2018
Public SHS

Total Philippines
Region I - Ilocos Region
Region II - Cagayan Valley
Region III - Central Luzon
Region IV-A - CALABARZON
Region IV-B - MIMAROPA
Region V - Bicol Region
Region VI - Western Visayas
Region VII - Central Visayas
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula
Region X - Northern Mindanao
Region XI - Davao Region
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN
Caraga
NCR
CAR
ARMM

Private SHS

2016/17

2017/18

2020/21

2016/17

2017/18

Number of Places Available in HEIs for SHS

in SY 2017/18
2020/21 Private HEIs LUCs
SUCs All HEIs

1,078,453

2,030,723

2,141,435

350,602

667,943

684,200

899,748

72,262

525,324

1,497,334

61,606
38,756
118,689
147,307
36,839
77,640
87,813
82,033
54,788
40,392
41,326
45,228
45,632
28,512
131,372
17,200
23,320

116,393
74,239
223,831
279,381
68,839
147,763
164,644
156,425
101,468
76,401
74,836
84,474
87,917
53,395
246,465
32,829
41,424

118,291
75,154
234,541
294,326
71,896
157,213
174,993
166,638
107,015
83,389
80,336
98,811
93,646
56,895
249,446
33,584
45,262

17,026
10,517
45,073
73,621
6,894
14,448
21,009
27,058
9,005
7,309
13,678
11,556
12,482
6,196
59,185
7,483
8,063

32,576
20,900
88,787
142,584
13,186
26,440
42,029
50,834
16,484
14,084
25,856
20,315
23,706
11,283
109,165
14,619
15,095

34,426
22,043
90,649
141,700
12,140
31,141
43,781
59,175
19,193
16,263
26,776
23,339
25,410
11,730
95,781
14,984
15,669

47,147
27,568
59,475
99,090
4,789
36,727
57,262
84,001
16,993
31,798
39,212
49,684
54,887
41,007
173,760
15,058
61,201

2,843
508
3,947
5,037
276
5,069
6,068
2,542
1,441
0
2,046
649
0
143
41,692
0
0

30,188
31,983
56,458
56,496
23,667
34,659
43,500
34,971
39,346
22,537
25,677
13,143
15,807
11,976
58,970
13,102
12,844

80,178
60,059
119,881
160,624
28,822
76,456
106,829
121,514
57,780
54,335
66,936
63,476
70,693
53,126
274,421
28,160
74,045

Division-level projections based on historical levels of cohort survival rates

Source: ADB (2012)
a

PN 2015-06

Policy Notes

Table 2. Projected classroom/teacher requirement under alternative scenarios

regarding provision of places for projected public SHS enrollment,
SY 2016/17 and SY 2017/18

Number of Classrooms
2016/17
2017/18a

Number of Teachers
2016/17
2017/18a

With pure DepED provision

26,955

23,812

45,908

38,708

If 100 percent of HEI places were made

available to public SHS students

11,572

11,613

20,273

18,381

If 50 percent of HEI places were made

available to public SHS students

17,454

16,581

30,080

26,644

a
incremental for the year
Source: ADB (2012)

In SY 2017/18, these numbers would have

increased to 1.5 million places in public and
private HEIs, equivalent to 37,433 classrooms
(Table 1).2 Although the geographic
distribution of these places is fairly uneven,
HEIs are present in all school divisions with
the exception of two divisions (Siargao and
Lanao del Sur II). If all the available places in
HEIs arising from the missing cohorts were
made available to the SHS program, the total
classroom requirement for the SHS program in
public schools would drop by 57 percent from
26,955 with pure DepED provision to 11,572
in SY 2016/17. However, if only 50 percent of
the available places in HEIs are made available
for the SHS program in the public sector, then
the total classroom requirement in public SHS
would drop by 35 percent to 17,454 in SY
2016/2017 (Table 2).
______________
2
The number of places in HEIs that may become available for
the SHS program in 2017 is estimated based on the number
of their first year and second year students in 2011 assuming
a standard class size of 40.

PN 2015-06

Policy Notes

Allowing HEIs to offer the SHS program, at

least in the interim, is a win-win solution.
First, it would allow DepED to delay or
reduce the number of classrooms that the
public sector needs to construct to meet the
requirements of the SHS program, thereby
reducing the pressure on government
resources and capability. HEI participation in
the SHS program, in the short term, would
buy DepED time to determine the real
demand for SHS places before it actually
builds the needed classrooms, thereby
enabling it to avoid the possibility of
overbuilding of classrooms. Second, it would
avoid private HEIs from retrenching their
faculty members who would be left with no
students to teach because of the missing
cohorts over the 20162019 period. Third,
the current HEI faculty provides a ready
source of teaching expertise for the higherlevel subjects required in the new SHS
curriculum. Fourth, it will ensure that the
resources of state universities and colleges
(SUCs) are put to optimum use instead of

being underutilized.3 Note that the K to 12

law allows HEI faculty to teach in the SHS
program even if they have not passed the
Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).

deemed important in ensuring that SUCs do

not continue to operate large basic education
programs while paying their faculty higher
rates in line with their status as SUCs.

However, for HEIs to actively participate in

the SHS program, appropriate policies will
have to be put in place. An enabling policy
environment will be needed to allow HEIs to
offer the SHS program, such as the provision
of (i) mechanisms/programs (e.g., education
service contracting, vouchers, and/or
concession arrangements) to encourage
private HEIs to make available for the use of
incoming SHS students over the 20162019
period the places that will be left vacant by
the missing cohorts in the collegiate level;
and (ii) other policies (like credit window
for classroom construction) that will support
private HEIs that will be interested to offer
the SHS program on a long-term basis.

With the introduction of the SHS program,

this policy will need to be revisited and
amended, at least in the interim, to allow (or
possibly even encourage) SUCs to offer the
SHS program to as many students they can
accommodate given their existing faculty
complement (at least the tenured component
of it) and the missing cohorts in the collegiate
level over the 20162019 period. In the
medium term, the government would need
to review SUCs staffing pattern in the light
of the downloading of some of the general
education subjects in their baccalaureate
programs to the SHS program.

Additionally, the government has to modify

its existing policy governing SUCs basic
education program offerings. SUCs are
allowed to offer the basic education
program (including the JHS program)4 only
if they also offer teacher education at the
baccalaureate level. Moreover, the size of the
enrollment in their basic education program
is limited to 500 students. This restriction is
provided for under a special provision
inserted each year into the General
Appropriations Act. Because many SUCs
historically were converted from secondary
schools to trade schools and finally to
colleges or universities, this policy was

References
National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA). 2011. Philippine Development Plan
20112016. Pasig City: NEDA.
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2012. Education
Improvement Sector Development Program
(EISDP) Project Preparatory Technical
Assistance. Mandaluyong City: ADB. http://
www.adb.org/projects/documents/education
-improvement-sector-development-program
-ipsa.
Department of Education (DepED). Various years.
Medium-Term Expenditure Plan 20132017,
2012. Pasig City: DepED.
______________
3

Faculty retrenchment is not a problem in the SUC sector

inasmuch as civil service rules give SUCs faculty security of
tenure.
4
The basic education programs of SUCs are viewed as
laboratory schools of their teacher education programs in
the collegiate level.

PN 2015-06

Policy Notes

List of Policy Notes in 2014

PN 2014-01
PN 2014-02
PN 2014-03
PN 2014-04
PN 2014-05
PN 2014-06
PN 2014-07
PN 2014-08
PN 2014-09
PN 2014-10
PN 2014-11
PN 2014-12
PN 2014-13
PN 2014-14
PN 2014-15
PN 2014-16
PN 2014-17
PN 2014-18
PN 2014-19
PN 2014-20
PN 2014-21
PN 2014-22
PN 2014-23

How should we move forward in customs brokerage and trade facilitation? (G. Llanto, A. Navarro, K. Detros, and M.K. Ortiz)
Using the social rate of discount in evaluating public investments in the Philippines (E. Medalla)
Toward relaxing the cabotage restrictions in maritime transport (G. Llanto and A. Navarro)
Big Data for measuring progress and development: Big insights or big issues? (J.R. Albert)
Reviewing quality assessment tools for graduate education (M.A. Ofreneo)
A profile of graduate education programs in the Philippines (M.A. Ofreneo)
Formulating the Philippine services strategy for inclusive growth (R. Serafica)
Bakit nagmahal ang bigas noong 2013? At bakit mahal pa rin? The continuing saga of rice self-sufficiency in the Philippines
(R. Briones and I.M. Galang)
Linking small farmers to modern markets: The role of contract farming (R. Briones and I.M. Galang)
Competition in the rice value chain: Highlights of a rapid appraisal (B. dela Pea)
Analysis of technical assumptions and processes of evaluating feasibility of irrigation projects (T. Moya)
Government investment in deep-well pumps: Some preliminary notes for policy (A. dela Cruz and R. Briones)
Appraisal of methodology in estimating irrigable areas and processes of evaluating feasibility of NIA irrigation projects
(G. Tabios III and C. David)
Process, nature, and impacts of irrigation system rehabilitation (M.L. delos Reyes)
Effects of minimum wage on the Philippine economy (L. Lanzona, Jr.)
Is growth really jobless? (J.R. Albert)
Clarifying the jobs challenge (A. Orbeta, Jr. and V. Paqueo)
The need (or not) for fiscal incentives (R. Manasan and D.K. Parel)
How should income-based grantees in tertiary education be chosen? (D.V. Silfverberg)
Measuring irrigation performance: Lessons from national systems (C. David and A. Inocencio)
Establishing the linkages between human resource development and inclusive growth (T. Tullao, Jr. et al.)
Why global value chains and services matter: Implication for APEC 2015 (R. Serafica)
Process assessment of the bottom-up budgeting: The case of Quezon Province (C. Pastrana and M. Lagarto)

____________
The Policy Notes Series can be downloaded from http://www.pids.gov.ph/publications.

For further information, please contact

The Research Information Staff
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
Telephone Nos: (63-2) 894-2584 and 893-5705
Fax Nos: (63-2) 893-9589 and 816-1091
E-mail: rmanasan@mail.pids.gov.ph; publications@pids.gov.ph
The Policy Notes series is available online at http://www.pids.gov.ph. Reentered as
second class mail at the Business Mail Service Office under Permit No. PS-570-04
NCR. Valid until December 31, 2015.
PN 2015-06

Policy Notes