August 6, 2026

BY DR. JEROME ZAYAS

THE SECOND Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) has made one thing clear: the Philippine education system is not failing from lack of effort. It is failing because it is not designed for the realities it faces.

For years, reforms have focused on expanding enrolment, increasing budgets, and training teachers. Yet many Filipino learners still fall short of basic literacy and numeracy. Children move through school without mastering foundational skills. Teachers carry growing demands without the support to meet them. And those most affected are learners already at the margins, shaped by poverty, disability, geography, language, and conflict.

These are not isolated gaps. They point to a deeper problem in how the system is designed. At the center of this is a quiet assumption: that there is an “average learner” the system can be built around. In practice, especially in the Philippines, no such learner exists.

This is clear in places like the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). In a classroom in South Upi, Maguindanao del Sur, a single teacher may handle multiple languages, wide differences in reading ability, and students who attend irregularly due to economic or social pressures. Some are just learning to read. Others are already far behind. Yet instruction is still delivered as if these differences do not matter.

EDCOM II has diagnosed this crisis well. The harder task is redesigning the system so it can respond to the learners it actually serves. That shift begins with a simple but fundamental change: instead of asking how learners can adapt to the system, we ask how the system can adapt to learners, starting with those most at risk of being left behind. In practice, this changes how schools work.

Teachers are no longer left to solve challenges alone. With structured collaboration, they identify which learners are struggling, understand why, and plan responses together. Responsibility for learning becomes shared, not individual.

Inclusion also becomes concrete. Lessons are designed with multiple ways to engage- visual, auditory, and experiential- so more learners can participate. Assessment becomes flexible, allowing different ways to demonstrate understanding. Classrooms shift from compliance to engagement.

Equally important is moving from reacting to failure to anticipating it. With simple systems for early identification, schools can intervene before learning gaps widen. Learners who might otherwise fall behind are supported in time.

These changes are already visible in places like South Upi. Teachers report greater confidence in using inclusive strategies, with improvements in participation and engagement. Once invisible learners begin to take part in the learning process.

What this shows is that inclusion is not a side concern. It is central to how the system works. Too often, inclusion is treated as a program for learners with disabilities or as a separate social agenda. But when schools respond to differences in language, culture, gender, and ability, the benefits extend to all learners. Participation improves. Learning becomes more accessible. Classrooms become more effective.

In this sense, inclusion is not an added cost. It is how the system becomes more responsive and resilient. If EDCOM II is to lead to real change, it must go beyond identifying gaps and begin reshaping how the system functions at its core. This means addressing the disconnect between policy and classroom reality.

Three shifts are critical.

First, teacher development must move from one-off training to continuous, school-based learning.
The system has invested heavily in training, yet improvements in classroom practice remain uneven. The issue is not access to training, but its lack of continuity. Teachers need structured time within their workload to collaborate, examine learner needs, and refine their practice together. School heads must be supported to act as instructional leaders, not just administrators. Division offices must shift toward ongoing coaching and support. Existing resources, such as INSET and CPD, should be redirected toward sustained, practice-based learning within schools.

Second, the system must shift from standardised delivery to adaptive instruction and assessment.
Uniform approaches may be easier to manage, but they do not reflect the diversity of Philippine classrooms. Learners come with different levels of readiness, shaped by their backgrounds and prior exposure to learning. Meeting standards requires flexibility in how teaching is delivered and how learning is assessed. This means allowing teachers to adjust instruction based on learner needs, supported by policies that prioritise learning over compliance. It also requires investing in tools and materials that support differentiated instruction.

Third, early identification and layered support must become part of how schools operate.
At present, support often comes too late, after learning gaps have widened. While targeted interventions can work, their impact is limited when treated as add-ons. Schools need simple, built-in ways to detect learning needs early, along with clear pathways for escalating support. Division offices must be able to provide timely technical and resource assistance. This requires shifting investment toward early and preventive support, rather than late remediation.

These are not small adjustments. They are structural changes.

What makes the Philippine context important is that these shifts are already being tested in some of the most challenging environments. The experience in BARMM shows that it is possible to build systems that are both inclusive and effective, even under constraint. Across the world, education systems are grappling with how to deliver learning in contexts marked by inequality and diversity. Many look for solutions in policy or technology. But the experience on the ground suggests that the real answer lies in how systems are designed.

This brings us back to the question EDCOM II now raises.

If the goal is not just access, but learning, then reform must start from a different place. Not from the average learner, but from the one most likely to be excluded. That learner is not an outlier. They are the clearest measure of whether the system works. Until the system is designed with them in mind, the promise of education reform in the Philippines will remain out of reach.

(About the author: Dr. Jerome Zayas is a sustainable development scholar whose work spans international relations, public policy, peacebuilding, climate resilience, and inclusive development across the Asia-Pacific. With more than two decades of experience in applied research, policy, and practice, he has advised governments, international organisations, and civil society on strategies that advance equitable, resilient, and sustainable societies. )