ZTE and DepEd’s Cyber Education

The ZTE Deal is officially dead…or is it?

Last week, PGMA and her cohorts faced China’s top brass only to tell them that the initial agreement on the NBN had to be cancelled; courtesy of the controversies of corruption and the Senate’s probe into that anomalous deal. But what about the agreement on DepEd’s Cyber Education?

PGMA wants the Cyber Ed to push through because she doesn’t want this one to be maligned and scrutinized just like the ZTE Deal. Even DepEd Secretary Jesli Lapuz says that our country’s failing educational system and quality can only be saved by the use of this technology.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but essentially, this project aims to spend billions only to provide schools with t.v. sets. At least this is what I understand. The idea behind the Cyber Ed, just like the NBN, is basically good because it affords us to use modern technology and potentially make a new industry out of it. Heck, if we have these projects correctly planted, there is no doubt that we could rise above this sorry state that we are in. But sadly, these projects have become tainted with controversy, not because the Opposition wants to create another ‘issue’, but because it is indeed laced with too much irregularities and money.

The Cyber Ed wants to provide our schools with quality, virtual and downloadable instructional materials. Nothing wrong with that, except that having downloadable instructional materials can encourage procrastination and indirect neglect in the part of the students. As an example, here in UPLB, there had been talks of setting up podcasts so students can download lectures or lessons if they missed a day in class. This setting could trigger a decrease in student attendance and an increase of dependency in the podcasts. Although I am not sure whether this plan will happen in the future of UP Education or not, what I do hope is that there will be an increase of teachers, a higher pay for them as well and new buildings and facilities. The increase in tuition fee is a necessity for me but it could be avoided if the government will increase it’s budget for education.

With 20+ billion alloted for Cyber Ed, is it logical for us to spend it in pure instructional materials only and neglect the much needed infrastructures e.g. school buildings, books and higher pay for teachers? In most rural areas in the country, the last thing students need is a t.v. set connected to the satellite to provide them of lessons. They need teachers, electricity, roof for their school or rather, a proper building to call a ’school’. How can DEpEd forget these basic needs and skip right into the cyber world? In the first place, if we do not have a school building, where would the students view the lessons? If we do not have electricity, how would the t.v. set work? Missing the crucial and most basic requirements of education is totally irresponsible. Although the idea of setting up this sort of aid in education is truly ambitious and laudable, it is impractical and overpriced.