What’s failing Philippine education: Learning or leadership?

The term "learning crisis" has been thrown around so often in Philippine education circles that it has become a convenient shield, a rhetorical device that blames students, teachers and even parents for the system’s collapse. But this framing misses the real culprit: it is not simply a learning crisis; it is an educational leadership crisis. Concerns about the quality of Philippine education are not new.

As early as 1925, the Monroe Survey Report already pointed out major deficiencies in student learning outcomes, highlighting low achievement in English, mathematics and science compared to American standards. Yet instead of addressing the deeper problems of system design and governance, reforms over the decades have mostly focused on superficial fixes and short-term interventions.

Almost a century later, the same fundamental issues remain. If learning outcomes have consistently been poor across generations, perhaps the better question is not "Why aren't students learning?" but rather, "What do education leaders do in terms of policies and law reforms?"

Poor learning outcomes are not accidental. They are the predictable, logical result of decades of policy mismanagement, bureaucratic inertia and leadership failure at the highest levels.

As PISA scores, SEA-PLM results, and national achievement tests continue to show Filipino students lagging behind, few dare to ask why those responsible for running the education system are not being held accountable.

There is nothing natural about the learning gaps in the Philippines. Despite significant budget increases in education over the years, outcomes have remained stagnant or worsened.

According to the 2018 PISA, 80% of 15-year-old Filipino students failed to achieve minimum proficiency levels in reading. A subsequent SEA-PLM assessment found that Grade 5 students struggled with basic literacy and numeracy skills.

The common reaction has been more teacher training, more curriculum revisions and more interventions targeting the so-called deficiencies of students and teachers. But when policy after policy fails to address systemic issues, when reforms are introduced without building capacity or securing resources, it becomes clear: these learning problems are not the fault of the frontliners. They are the failures of leadership.

Policy instability has been one of the most visible signs of poor leadership. Over the past decade, the education sector has been subjected to relentless reforms such as K-12 implementation, Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) and Senior High School, often rolled out in haste and without sufficient preparation.

Leaders announced policies with much fanfare but failed to ensure that classrooms were ready, that teachers were equipped and that communities understood the changes. Grand slogans like "Sulong EduKalidad" and the "MATATAG Curriculum" promise sweeping transformations, yet are rarely backed by serious structural reforms. Education has become performative governance, where colorful launches, thick manuals, and glossy roadmaps take precedence over solving the everyday realities of Filipino learners.

At the heart of the leadership crisis is the politicization of education governance. Leadership positions at every level, from regional directors to division superintendents, are often filled based on political loyalty rather than professional competence.

Careerism, not public service, has become the norm. Decisions are made to preserve bureaucratic power instead of boldly confronting the realities that students and teachers face. Leadership remains detached from the ground, leaving overcrowded classrooms, underpaid teachers, and dilapidated facilities to fester.

The disastrous rollout of the K-12 program is a stark example. Originally intended to raise standards and better prepare Filipino graduates for the global economy, K-12 was implemented without sufficient teacher training, without addressing resource shortages, and without providing clear pathways for employment after senior high school. Predictably, the first cohorts of K-12 graduates faced massive underemployment and low test performance.

Yet even amid these systemic failures, there are divisions, schools, and programs led by strong and ethical leaders that show it is possible to achieve improvements even without large budgets. These rare successes highlight a critical truth: the decisive factor is not merely resources, but leadership that is visionary, responsive and competent.

The costs of leadership failure are not theoretical. They are measured in the millions of Filipino youth condemned to economic insecurity because they were failed by their education system. Every year that the leadership crisis remains unaddressed, the cycle of poverty deepens.

The wealthiest families opt out of public education, insulating themselves in private schools, while the poor remain trapped in a broken system that limits their futures. Worse, each grand reform that collapses under its own weight further erodes public trust, not only in the education sector but in democratic governance itself. If public education, which is supposed to be the great equalizer, cannot be trusted, what public institution can?

Real reform must begin with accountability. It is not enough to demand better student scores or more diligent teachers. We must demand better leaders. Leadership positions in DepEd, CHED, TESDA, and allied agencies must be filled based on transparent and merit-based criteria.

Leadership should be treated as a career of public trust, not a political stepping stone. Leadership development must be invested in seriously, with programs that emphasize ethical governance, systemic thinking and community engagement.

New leaders must be equipped not just to administer bureaucracies, but to transform them. Moreover, educational reforms must be gradual, carefully piloted, evidence-based and protected from political interference. We must break free from the pattern where each new administration tears down what the previous one built for the sake of optics. Stability, consistency, and long-term vision are essential for any meaningful progress.

It is time to reframe the conversation. The Philippines does not merely suffer from a learning crisis. It suffers from an educational leadership crisis. Until we confront leadership failure head-on, we will continue to treat symptoms while the real disease festers.

No amount of curriculum revisions, new tests, or teacher workshops will succeed if the system itself is poorly led. The next time we ask why Filipino students are falling behind, we should not look at their test papers. We should look instead at the leadership that has shaped and failed their futures.

Are our current and future education leaders willing to rethink how they govern and for whom they lead? Do they have the courage to make decisions that are difficult but necessary? Most importantly, are they ready to serve not politics, not careers, but the very students whose futures depend on their leadership?

Arlyne C. Marasigan is a professor of Educational Leadership and Management, while Allen A. Espinosa is a professor of Science Education at the College of Advanced Studies. Both are fellows at the Educational Policy Research and Development Office of the Philippine Normal University. They may be reached at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Philippine Normal University.