Classroom Shortage in Philippine Public Schools: A Direct Opposite of Vygotsky's Theory of Learning

Classroom Shortage in Public Schools

by David A. Gualin, March 27, 2015

            “There is serious shortage of classrooms nationwide that no amount of “manipulation of numbers” will do away with” said former education undersecretary Juan Miguel Luz (2011).  A few years after that Assistant Secretary Jesus Mateo (as quoted by Dacanay, 2013) said, “By 2013, we will be able to address shortages in classrooms.”  However, today “Overcrowding of school rooms has remained due to the growing number of pupils beyond the expectation of the education department” (Dacanay, 2013).  The reasons for such are outlined by Luz (2011):

(a) Continued high population growth rate and

(b) A significantly large transfer of pupils from private to public ballooned classroom to closer to 65 per class on average, with some reaching upwards to 90 pupils per class in extreme cases.

            The reasons stated by Luz (2011) still holds water until today.  In 2013, the National Statistical Coordination Board (as mentioned by Crisostomo, 2014) estimated the country’s population to be around 97.35 million and now by the end of September the population is expected to boom at 100 Million.  This means more children will need to be accommodated by the present number of classrooms.  Add to that, many pupils who were formerly enrolled in private schools that were allowed to increase tuition fees, have transferred to public schools resulting to bigger population in public schools (Dacanay, 2013).  This means that the Philippines is still far from its ideal ratio of 45 pupils per class (Luz, 2011).  In the province of Cavite in itself classroom to pupil ratio is still in the red with 1:55 in school year 2011-2012 and 1:57 in school year 2012-2013 (Provincial Government of Cavite, 2013).

            Way back school year 2002-2003, DepEd embarked on “an interim strategy in SY 2003-2004 (under Secretary Edilberto de Jesus) to do double-shifts in the most overcrowded schools so that classrooms could be used TWICE in one day. Hence, the “classroom-to-pupil” ratio is actually twice the number of pupils per class because the room is used twice a day by two classes (morning and afternoon) rather than by just one class (for the entire day)” (Luz, 2011). 

            This scenario of shifting classes and still having more than 45 pupils per class is way below the usual practice of the Philippines’ neighboring countries (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand – where the norm is 25-30 in class) (Luz, 2011).  Mabunga (2011) said that the Philippines’ ideal classroom to pupil ratio is 1:25 or 1:40.  Regardless of which one is correct, the present number of 1:57 (as per Provincial Government of Cavite, 2013) is way below it – consider also that that is the number per class twice in a day in one classroom.  Hence, classroom shortage is still a real problem in Philippine public schools. In the US alone, a class of 30 pupils is said to be too large that “it is easier for a shy or unprepared pupil to “hide.”  Conversely, in a class of 15 pupils, pupils may feel more accountable or more comfortable participating in class discussions – and this greater degree of accountability can certainly lead to better grades and higher achievement” (Brozak, 2014).

            The woeful figures of the Philippines’ lack of classrooms shows the following statistics (Melencio and others, 2006):

• One of every 7 Filipino pupils does not have a classroom.

• One of every 5 pupils does not have a desk to sit on.

• One of every 3 pupils does not have even a single textbook.

• More than half of public school teachers in the country have little, if any, college training in the subject areas they teach.

• Only 25% of science and math teachers actually trained in their respective areas of instruction.

• 16% of Filipinos between the ages of 10 and 64 are “functionally illiterate” (this means 9.2 million Pinoys out there, and DepEd officials say this could be a conservative estimate).

• A functionally illiterate person cannot read, write, subtract and add, or understand simple instructions – something normally learned by Grade 4.

• Out of every 1,000 Grade VI pupils, only six are prepared to enter high school. Out of the 1.4 million Grade VI pupils who took the High School Readiness Test (HSRT) in 2004, only 0.64% of them passed.

• Out of every 100 Fourth Year High School pupils, only two are ready to enter college. Of the more than 1 million Fourth Year High School pupils who took the National Achievement Test (NAT) in 2004, an appalling 97.9% of them flunked.

• 44.25% of graduating 4th Year High School pupils do not have any English skills at all.

• Knowledge and proficiency even in Pilipino is also declining. The 2005 NAT results showed a 42.48% proficiency level, way below the 61.26% proficiency results in 2001.

• The performance of Filipino pupils in international-level standards, such as the Trends in Math and Science Survey (TIMSS), remains way below par (See Table below).

 Table 1.  Average Scores in Math and Science based on TIMSS

            Luz (2011) explained that classroom shortage is so severe that “there were a number of public schools that ran up to three or four shifts a day, mostly in areas bounding squatter areas. As one can imagine, there is little, if any, learning going on in such an abbreviated set-up.”  Just recently Dacanay (2013) reported the same issue; “

            The government could not yet reach its ideal ratio of 1:25 ratio of teacher and pupils for kindergarten; 1:45 for elementary schools; and 1:50 to 55 ratio for high schools, said Luz Almeda, director of education department’s national capital region…Five per cent or 35 schools in Metro Manila and other urban areas are congested, said [Almeda] Problems of shortage could affect number of seats and textbooks for pupils… adding that this problem is currently being solved with two to three shifts of classes per day.”

The Effects of Classroom Shortage in Learning

            Luz (2011) said “that a classroom should only be used by one class per day (especially in the higher grades) because double or even triple-shifting takes away class time from pupils. And as everyone should know, cutting short class time will only serve to cut short learning time. If pupils don’t learn because they have less time in class that is the crux of the low achievement problem.”  Mabunga (2011) describes in detail what happens when the class is too large:

·         Daily realities in schools are cramped classrooms and makeshift classes in open spaces or gyms.

·         Unnecessary noises and commotions not only distract the attention of learners, they hardly make the instructions audible.

·         Teachers are forced to shout and exert much effort to retain control of the situation. 

·         Handling big classes and taking charge of two or more sections and subjects also overstretched the competencies of teachers.   It demands from teachers, lengthy preparation and mastery of topics.  In totality, the condition poses problems in the management of subjects and the total development of pupils. 

             Brozak (2014) on the other hand outlines the benefits of having a smaller class as per endorsed by the Center for Public Education in the USA.  The following are the benefits:

·         The positive effects of reduced pupil-to-teacher ratio are the most apparent in early education, specifically in kindergarten through third grade. The Center for Public Education states that classes of no more than 15 to18 pupils seem to provide pupils with the best benefits in terms of achievement in reading and math.

·         Small classes during the early years of education also help to close the "achievement gap" between minority and nonminority pupils, and also between affluent and lower-income pupils. The Brookings Institution reports that the advantages of lower pupil-to-teacher ratios may be even greater for less-advantaged pupils; those pupils have been shown to make the highest achievement gains by the end of the school year.

·         Small class sizes during a child's first years of school can have lasting effects. According to the Center for Public Education, the benefits that pupils experience from small class sizes during their early years of education will follow them -- even if their class sizes increase as they inch toward graduation. In fact, a study published in the "Economic Journal" found that pupils who attended smaller classes during their first few years of school were more likely to take college entrance exams than pupils who were enrolled with a larger pupil-to-teacher ratio.

·         Of course, the primary reason behind these benefits seems to be that teachers who have fewer pupils are able to provide each pupil with more individual attention.

·         Fewer pupils means that teachers have more manageable workloads and more time to work one-on-one with pupils; they can engage them more, try out different activities and lessons that might not be feasible in a larger class size, and, because they have fewer pupils to monitor, they tend to spend less time on classroom management issues, such as discipline.

·         A lower pupil-to-teacher can also encourage greater participation in class.

Vygotsky on Class Size and Shorter Class Time

            Vygotsky’s theory is the Cultural-Historical Theory which according to Vygotsky “the developmental outcomes and processes that were typically thought of as occurring ‘naturally’ or ‘spontaneously’ were, in fact, substantially influenced by children’s own learning or ‘constructed’.  Learning, in turn, was shaped by the social-historical context in which it took place. This dual emphasis—on children’s active engagement in their own mental development and on the role of the social context—determined the name used to describe the Vygotskian approach in the West—‘social constructivism’” (As mentioned by Bodrova and Leong, 2001).  It means that children learn in accord with what the social context can offer.  “Vygotsky's theories stress the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of cognition, as he believed strongly that community plays a central role in the process of "making meaning” (Gottesman, n.d.).  The effective use of the zone of proximal development to help the pupil use scaffolding requires that the teacher assess the learning level of the child and define the zone of proximal development (ZPD).  After the teacher identifies the ZPD, the teacher then devises learning activities in line with the curriculum that would help the child develop learning through scaffolding.  The role of working in the ZPD is so essential in Vygotsky’s theory that if this is neglected effective learning will not occur.  The increase of pupils in a classroom and the lesser time to assess pupils’ ZPD and provide customized learning activities for every each child is the main argument why shifting classes will not work in improving the quality of education in the Philippines.  It is also the main thesis of this study (as mentioned by Figure 1 and 2 in chapter 1).  The following concepts from Vygotsky’s theory and the implications of shifting classes and increased class size will further strengthen this argument:

More Knowledgeable Other (MKO).  This is somewhat self-explanatory.  It refers to someone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or concept.  Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not necessarily the case.  Many times, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the individuals with more knowledge or experience. The key to MKOs is that they must have more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner does (Gottesman, n.d.).   There are more instances when the MKO is guaranteed present and influential.  Lessening class time because of shifting classes and lessening interaction with the MKO, because of more pupils to interact with in lesser time, will result to less opportunity for the MKO to influence the child’s cognitive development. 

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).  This is an important concept that relates to the difference between what a child can achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.  Vygotsky sees the Zone of Proximal Development as the area where the most sensitive instruction or guidance should be given - allowing the child to develop skills they will then use on their own - developing higher mental functions.  Vygotsky also views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies.  He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more skilful peers - within the zone of proximal development.  Identifying the zone of proximal development takes time and less time in the classroom due to shifting classes will diminish the opportunity to effectively use the ZPD.

            Remember that “only instruction and activities that fall within the zone promote development. For example, if a child cannot identify the sounds in a word even after many prompts, the child may not benefit immediately from instruction in this skill. Practice of previously known skills and introduction of concepts that are too difficult and complex have little positive impact. Teachers can use information about both levels of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (that is what the child can do on his own and what the child can do with an MKO through scaffolding) in organizing classroom activities in the following ways” (Pearson, 2010):

·         Instruction can be planned to provide practice in the zone of proximal development for individual children or for groups of children. For example, hints and prompts that helped children during the assessment could form the basis of instructional activities (Pearson, 2010).  But how can the teacher identify the ZPD in each child and plan activities in line with that ZPD’s scope if the teacher is too stressed out to even make individualized assessments since she is already shouting to get her lesson (and often her discipline) across fifty or more pupils?

·         Cooperative learning activities can be planned with groups of children at different levels who can help each other learn (Pearson, 2010).  But this requires that the teacher identify the ZPD level of each child to pair them successfully – this requires more time and planning which the shifting classes can deficiently provide.

Scaffolding.  Scaffolding is a tactic for helping the child in his or her zone of proximal development in which the adult provides hints and prompts at different levels. In scaffolding, the adult does not simplify the task, but the role of the learner is simplified “through the graduated intervention of the teacher” (as mentioned by Pearson, 2010).  But how can the teacher make a graduated intervention – that is varying approaches for every child if time will not allow it?  The curriculum for one is already prescribed by DepEd and the only thing left for the teacher to do is to provide activities in line with the curriculum.  For every each day there is a prescribed coverage for the curriculum.  If a certain part of the curriculum is given much time because the teacher needs to identify the ZPD so as to provide the right kind of scaffolding then the whole curriculum cannot be taught in the time frame prescribed.  Hence, the pupil will not be able to perform well in large group testing or periodical tests because the child’s learning covered only part of the curriculum and not the whole.  Again, shifting classes is the one to blame for the lack of time in the assessment of the ZPD and the planning and execution of activities in line with each child’s ZPD.  In shifting classes the teacher seems to be just delivering the lessons prescribed by the curriculum with less chance to identify weak and strong pupils and provide customized learning activities to both groups.

            Having said that, the minimized time for classroom interaction offered by shifting classes runs against many of the basic beliefs of Vygotsky’s theory, which are as follows (as mentioned by Burton, 2007):

·         The belief that effective learning requires the active involvement of the learner whereas the lack of time in teaching and learning lessens the active involvement of the learner – first of all due to time constraint, second due to the sheer number of pupils (they are just too many to call them one by one) and three due to the tiredness of the teacher in providing classes to two groups of pupils in one day.

·         The belief that teachers direct and guide the individual activity of the pupils but they do not dictate or force their own will on them. Authentic teaching and learning come through collaboration by adults with pupils.  But in shifting classes with prescribed curriculum, the curriculum needs to be finished in the time frame given hence the teacher cannot help but “force” the curriculum content to the child in the short time prescribed by shifting classes.

·         The belief that the most valuable methods for pupils’ teaching and learning correspond to their developmental and individual characteristics, and therefore these methods cannot be uniform.  But the sheer volume of pupils in a shifting class disallows the teacher to call the pupils to recite one by one everyday hence the teacher is forced to assume that the teaching level she is giving approximates the ZPD of all the pupils.

·         The belief that schools should provide the tools that learners need to internalise the ways of thinking central to participation in the cultural world around them.  Shifting classes is primarily due to the lack of classrooms.  Classrooms are tools for privacy, security and controlled learning environment that the teacher and pupil can utilize to focus on the learning task.  Since the school cannot provide adequate number of classrooms and class time – it runs antithesis to the very core of Vygotsky’s belief in this area.

Figure 2.1 below describes the occurrence of more scaffolding inside a regular classroom with its regular schedule and length of classes.  

 Figure 2.1.  More ZPD with Scaffolding in a Regular Class.

            The researcher conceptualizes that the mere increase of time in the regular classroom can provide more instances of ZPD with scaffolding since the formal classroom is the arena on which the MKO is present and ready to deliver language and reading skills.  “Within the classroom, the person who is more knowledgeable is not always the teacher; pupils can also be placed in collaborative groups with others who have demonstrated mastery of tasks and concepts” (Cofey, 2009).  Since the teacher and classmates can function as an MKO, it is expected that there will be more instances of learning in the classroom when they have sufficient time.

Reading Readiness and Classroom Time

            Majority of the literature on early grade reading point to the importance of sufficient classroom time devoted for active reading.  Allington (2002) recommends that at least half of the school day should be devoted to reading, the other half to writing.  The common practice is to spend at least 90 minutes in reading.  In Fontes and others’ (1981) study they found that time spend on teaching a native language (Irish) correlates with positively with Irish reading performance.  Likewise, Hinnebusch’s (n.d.) mentions that there is a direct correlation between ability to read and amount of time spent reading in the classroom.

            Allington (2002) described that the success in readiness to read is based on multi-level, multi-sourced curriculum that met the needs of diverse pupils in their classrooms.  This is especially important since reading in itself in class is not enough to effectively teach reading to all levels of pupils in the classroom.  As Eberts and Gisler (2013) said, “For good readers, hearing the material read aloud in a classroom is not beneficial. Because oral reading is a lot slower than silent reading, good readers can cover the material faster by reading it silently. There is also the problem of comprehension. Hearing material read aloud is passive reading -- not the active reading needed for good comprehension. Furthermore, many pupils suffer embarrassment and anxiety about reading aloud without any opportunity to look over and practice the material.”

            So the key really for reading readiness is not just to a lot a lot of time (e.g. 90 minutes on reading alone) but on reading with comprehension.  Reading needs to be practiced outside the classroom as well.  As Allington (2002) said, “If children are to read a lot throughout the school day, they will need a rich supply of books they can actually read. This seems a simple statement of fact. But there also exists a large and potent research base supporting supplying children with books of appropriate complexity.  Simply put, pupils need enormous quantities of successful reading to become independent, proficient readers. By successful reading, I mean reading experiences where pupils perform with a high level of reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.”  Allington (2002) even argued that teachers with exemplary performance in teaching “had to teach against the organizational grain. They rejected district plans that "required" all children be placed in the same textbook or tradebook (and do the same worksheets on the same day). They recognized such schemes for what they are: Truly anti-scientific, non-research-based fads designed more, it seems, as an attempt to exert administrative power than to produce high levels of pupil achievement.”  The sad part about this is that the teacher who perseveres to develop reading readiness for the child has to “spend both their personal time and personal funds to locate and/or purchase the texts needed to effectively teach the children they were assigned” (Allington, 2002).  But the payoff for the teacher is “the acceleration of literacy development in their lowest-achieving pupils” (Allington, 2002).

            Based on Allington’s (2002) findings and the theory of Vygotsky, it is evident that the key to successful teaching of reading readiness to pupils is not just a 90 minute per day allotted time to reading but the right assessment of pupil level of reading readiness and the feeding of appropriate course work, time and content for the reader.  “While pupils of all achievement levels benefited from exemplary teaching, it was the lowest achievers who benefited most” (Allington, 2002) from this kind of teacher effort.  Therefore the presence of shifting classes on Philippine public schools makes this kind of strategic approach in teaching more difficult for the teacher.  The teacher has a lot of pupils, in so little time, in a cramped classroom designed for 45 pupils but has 50 or more.  The National Center on Time and Learning (as mentioned by Eberts and Gisler, 2013) outlines the benefits of allotting extended time in school in:

1. Making it possible for pupils to spend more time on task.

2. Allowing teachers to delve into subject matter in more depth.

3. Encouraging more pupil engagement through project-based learning and elective courses.

4. Building in time for more teacher-pupil interaction.

            5. Creating time for teacher planning and professional development.

            All of these are less feasible in the present format of shifting classes in the Philippine schools.  

(Note:  Kindly give credit when credit is due.  This is my personal write-up and I would very much require any quotations or paraphrases taken from this composition to be properly cited with my name and the URL of this web page.  Thanks! - David A. Gualin)