ALMOST everyone has been informed about the recent backlash against the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) proposed revised General Education (GE) curriculum. The resistance was so strong that a barrage of official public statements from several institutions has been posted on various media platforms.
The proposed reframed GE curriculum is targeted for implementation in academic year 2027–2028. But because of the mounting opposition, the commission said the proposal would still undergo revisions and adjustments.
There are two clear, practical reasons for educators’ rejection of this proposed curriculum. The first is economic: for college instructors, it pertains to lower pay or, worse, job loss. This is because the academic units in the proposed GE course have been reduced from 36 to 18, without a clear or promised safety net from the government regarding compensation cuts.
The second is the observed incremental loss and weakening of humanities offerings within the commission’s curricular agenda. It appears the humanities are being sidelined because they are perceived to have less market value than professional courses in the academic formation of students. Furthermore, part of the overhauling includes the removal of what used to be standalone required subjects — philosophy, ethics, literature, art appreciation, and Philippine history — which would now be integrated into broader technical and skills-based courses. Certainly, one can enumerate several drawbacks to the continuous denigration of humanities courses in institutions of higher learning.
CHED officials have explained before — and continue to maintain — that the reason for the reframing is to avoid redundancy with lessons already taken in senior high school under the Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K to 12) curriculum.
This is where an important angle regarding the disapproval of the reframed GE should be emphasized. It makes more sense when complaints are based on a scientific basis: why GE is more suited to the collegiate level and should not be diminished in hours if the goal is the solid and holistic formation of students. The humanities — such as history, philosophy and ethics — are taught most effectively at the tertiary level.
Christine M. Reiter of the Dominican University of California, in her study “21st Century Education: The Importance of the Humanities in the Age of STEM,” explains this from a neuroscience perspective: “According to neurodevelopmental research, the prefrontal cortex continues developing into the mid-20s. College-aged students possess a higher capacity for the metacognition, historical empathy, and structural analysis necessary to comprehend complex philosophical or literary texts.”
Consequently, the serious teaching of the humanities should not be entrusted solely to the high school level, as CHED reasons, although an introductory phase should be taught there. Humanities should be taught to those with the requisite age and maturity — students who have been exposed to real-life situations, seen the wider reality of society, and been given more personal freedom for decision-making.
James Robson, lead author and member of Oxford University’s Centre for Skills, Knowledge and Organizational Performance, shares a similar line of thought. He said “the learning of humanities is highly effective at the collegiate level, largely because university environments foster the maturation of critical, analytical, and empathetic skills that are harder to cultivate in younger students.”
Determining when to effectively teach the humanities would be more scientific if educators took into consideration the developmental stage of students — their capacity to learn complex ideas and the maturity needed to appreciate meaning, beauty and depth in the world around them. It is not as simple as assigning the humanities to a certain academic level for bureaucratic convenience.
Educators should be keen on recent studies on the effective learning of young people through the lens of neuroscience. This field provides evidence-based findings on how the brain learns effectively at different academic stages, suggesting ways for educators to optimize teaching methods, enhance curriculum design, and acknowledge diverse learning needs.
Furthermore, they should not discount the foundational work of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget’s developmental cognitive theory or Jerome Bruner’s cognitive psychology. Being oblivious to the students’ need for a particular field of study being learned in their appropriate learning stage is like “drinking from a firehose.” Too much, too soon, results in an ineffective process of teaching and learning.
Fr. Jesus “Jay” Miranda Jr., OP, is an organization and leadership studies resource person. He teaches at the Graduate School of the University of Santo Tomas and the Department of Educational Leadership and Management of the Bro. Andrew Gonzalez, FSC–College of Education of De La Salle University Manila.
jaymiranda.op@ust.edu.ph
