Angara admits flaws in K-12 program, says Congress to decide on its future
Education Secretary Sonny Angara acknowledged on Friday that the implementation of the senior high school (SHS) curriculum under the K to 12 program has faced significant challenges over the past decade.
Angara cited the overwhelming number of subjects and the lack of flexibility for students as among the major issues.
'Hindi maganda ang naging implementation nitong nakaraang dekada. Masyadong marami ang subjects at nakahon masyado ang mga bata. Hindi sila nakakapili ng subject/s,' he said.
Despite these shortcomings, Angara stressed that only Congress can decide whether the SHS program should continue or be removed. This comes after Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada filed Senate Bill 3001 or the Rationalized Basic Education Act, which seeks to remove SHS from the current education setup, citing its failure to meet its intended goals.
In response, the Department of Education (DepEd) plans to pilot a 'strengthened' SHS curriculum in 841 schools deemed highly ready. Under the revised curriculum set for School Year 2025–2026, the number of core SHS subjects will be reduced from 15 to just five: effective communication, life skills, general mathematics, general science, and Filipino history and society.
Still, Angara reiterated that any final decision on the program's future lies with the legislature:
'Ang desisyon kung ipagpapatuloy ang SHS o hindi ay Kongreso lamang po ang makakapagsabi at makakapag-pasya.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
15 hours ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
Fifty Years After Emergency, The Present Modi Regime's Authoritarianism Is No Less Stifling
By P. Sudhir It may appear rather unusual to recall the inglorious sequence of events that began at midnight on June 25, 1975, with the declaration of the Internal Emergency. However, we are reminded of those immortal words of wisdom: 'those who tend to forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.' These words compel us to revisit that dark chapter in the history of Indian democracy. The late 1960s had dealt a blow to the Congress party's monopoly on power, with opposition parties securing victories in several states. In response, Mrs Indira Gandhi repositioned herself through a series of progressive-sounding slogans such as Garibi Hatao, bank nationalisation, and the abolition of the privy purse. Departing from traditional political practice, she concentrated power in herself, bypassing strong state-level leaders and directly appealing to the masses at the grassroots. This approach yielded some gains for Mrs Gandhi. However, what truly bolstered her bid for political hegemony was India's intervention in support of the Bangladesh liberation struggle. The eventual establishment of an independent Bangladesh and the decisive defeat of Pakistan significantly enhanced her stature. The presence of the Soviet Union also played a crucial role in deterring potential US intervention aimed at rescuing Pakistan's military regime. This reinforced Mrs Gandhi's stature and ensured her victory in the 1971 general elections. Nevertheless, this overall picture could not stop the CPI(M), which emerged as the single largest party in the West Bengal Assembly. But, this was not allowed to progress naturally. The 1972 assembly elections were thoroughly rigged, paving the way for nearly half a decade of semi-fascist repression. This period of authoritarianism seamlessly merged with the declaration of the Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975. During much of the Emergency, Gandhi's political opponents were imprisoned, and the press was censored. Over 10,000 political opponents, journalists, and activists were jailed under her regime. Meanwhile, the country was grappling with a series of economic challenges stemming from the recent war with Pakistan, droughts, and the global oil crisis of 1973. Rising unemployment and inflation further fuelled public discontent and political opposition. These growing pressures, coupled with Mrs Gandhi's sense of personal insecurity and legal setbacks – particularly the threat of losing her Lok Sabha membership – contributed to the decision to impose Emergency. In essence, the Emergency of 1975 was declared due to a combination of political, social, and economic factors. The government invoked Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the declaration of an Emergency in the event of war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. The official justification cited threats to national security and public order, leading to the suspension of fundamental rights and the concentration of power in the executive. Exposing the political dynamics that led to the Emergency, A K Gopalan, leader of the CPI(M) group in the Lok Sabha, stated during the debate on the Statutory Resolution for Approval of the Emergency proclamation on July 21, 1975:'The warning given by our Party about the rise of the tendency towards totalitarian and one-party dictatorship over the last three years has proved true with the sudden declaration of the new Emergency.'He went on to say that this abrupt move by the ruling party to extricate itself and its leader from a deepening personal and political crisis was a sign of weakness, not strength. It was designed to crush opposition voices and people's movements. He also exposed the false narrative that this Emergency was aimed against the extreme Right and Left adventurists. The inevitable followed, and the Congress, along with Indira Gandhi, could not avert political defeat. The eighteen-month Emergency has gone down in contemporary Indian history as a grave aberration and a sordid disruption of democracy. A broad coalition of forces ensured the restoration of democracy following the 1977 Lok Sabha elections. Today, Narendra Modi invokes the Emergency era, describing its imposition on June 25, 1975, as a 'black spot on the Constitution' of India. He has declared, 'These 50 years since the Emergency remind us to protect our Constitution and democracy with pride. The countrymen must resolve that such a travesty will never be allowed to happen again. We commit ourselves to ensuring a vibrant democracy and fulfilling the common man's dreams as outlined by the Indian Constitution.' However, this posturing is increasingly turning into a great hoax – an attempt to camouflage the RSS-BJP's own most obnoxious assault on Indian democracy, as it has unfolded over the past eleven years. Looking back fifty years later, the Emergency can be seen as the first major onslaught on India's democratic system – one that severely curtailed civil liberties and democratic rights. But it is a mistake, as many tend to do, to draw a direct comparison between the Emergency of 1975 and the present situation. The past decade under Modi is often referred to as an 'undeclared Emergency,' but such a comparison is misplaced on several counts. The current scenario has emerged against the backdrop of a global resurgence of the ultra-right, amidst a changed correlation of political forces in favour of imperialism. This phase has ushered in an era of finance capital driven global economies, marked by sharp inequality, rampant unemployment, and overwhelming corporate dominance. Accompanying this are unprecedented levels of identity-based polarisation and a relentless hate campaign, fostering the 'othering' of fellow citizens in both economic and social spheres. Thus, the present assault on democracy and constitutional principles is far more insidious. It has led to the rise of institutionalised authoritarianism – or what some observers term 'electoral autocracy.' In the Indian context, this authoritarian shift has been spearheaded by the RSS, injecting the toxic ideology of Hindutva, which seeks to fundamentally transform the very idea of India. This idea of India – born from the anti-colonial struggle – was anchored in a democratic, secular, socially just, and federal republic. The current onslaught is therefore more pervasive and stifling, aimed at dismantling the foundational principles of Indian citizenship. In hindsight, the 1975 Emergency now appears almost amateurish compared to the full-fledged authoritarianism we are experiencing today. While the current regime may seem harder to dislodge, the experience of fighting back against the Emergency in the 1970s should inspire confidence. A people united, with the will to resist the pernicious ideology of the RSS and reclaim democracy, can still meet and overcome today's challenge. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
Trump urges swift House approval of GENIUS stablecoin law
U.S. President Donald Trump has appealed directly to the House of Representatives to pass the GENIUS Act—a bipartisan stablecoin regulation bill cleared by the Senate—without any amendments or delays, stressing that it will position the country as the 'undisputed leader' in digital assets. The Senate passed the bill on 17 June with a decisive 68‑30 vote, supported by senators from both parties. It introduces stringent rules for stablecoin issuance, including full backing of coins with liquid reserves and monthly disclosures of reserve compositions, alongside audit and Treasury oversight provisions. Trump openly praised the legislation, calling it 'pure genius' and urging House Republicans to advance a 'clean' version so it reaches his desk before Congress breaks for its August recess. Major market players reacted positively. The approval spurred significant gains in related equities: shares of Circle Internet, issuer of the USDC stablecoin, surged between 16% and 27%, reflecting investor optimism for regulatory clarity and mainstream token adoption. ADVERTISEMENT The GENIUS Act's framework mandates that only permitted issuers—such as banks or federally approved payment companies—may issue stablecoins for U.S. users. It requires a one‑to‑one reserve ratio in U.S. dollars or Treasuries and monthly public disclosures about reserve composition. Additionally, it introduces safeguards for consumer protection and bankruptcy protocols prioritising stablecoin holders. Large issuers will have to undergo annual audits, and the bill prohibits stabilecoin ownership by Congress members, though it excludes the President and Vice President. While Trump's endorsement reflects his broader pro-crypto pivot—underscored by investments like Bitcoin, policy appointments, and support from his digital-assets advisory council—critics have flagged potential conflicts of interest. Trump and his family hold substantial stakes in crypto ventures including World Liberty Financial and its USD1 stablecoin, having earned tens of millions in 2024. Critics stress that exemption of the President from the bill's conflict-of-interest ban leaves a loophole that some fear could be exploited. Senators on both sides celebrated the bill. Republican sponsor Bill Hagerty described it as a 'paradigm-shifting development' that moves the U.S. toward global leadership in crypto. Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott described it as 'the most significant digital assets legislation ever to pass the U.S. Senate'. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent projected that the bill could expand the stablecoin market to $3 trillion‑plus by decade's end. Nonetheless, the path ahead is not without hurdles. Some Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley and others, raised objections during Senate negotiations, warning the bill could grant a 'super‑highway for corruption' and fails to curtail potential for big tech firms entering the stablecoin market. Senate negotiators incorporated numerous amendments to secure support, but key concerns remain unresolved.
