Обсуждение: Образование на Филиппинах

WikiProject Education

(Номинальный B-класс, высокая важность)

Эта статья входит в рамки WikiProject Education , совместной работы по улучшению освещения в Википедии образовательных и связанных с образованием тем. Если вы хотите принять участие, посетите страницу проекта, где вы можете присоединиться к обсуждению и увидеть список открытых задач.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles  B  Эта статья была оценена как B-Class по шкале качества проекта .  Высокая  Эта статья была оценена как высокая по шкале важности проекта .

WikiProject Tambayan Филиппины

(Класс B, высшая важность)

Эта статья находится в рамках WikiProject Tambayan Philippines , совместного усилия по улучшению освещения в Википедии тем, связанных с Филиппинами . Если вы хотите принять участие, посетите страницу проекта, где вы можете присоединиться к обсуждению и увидеть список открытых задач.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles  B  Эта статья была оценена как B-Class по шкале качества проекта .  Вершина  Эта статья была оценена как Top-значение на проект значения масштаба .

American vists[edit]

What is the documentation that shows Americans as going to the PI for schooling other than the normal international student exchange? That would seem a bit counter intuitive.Lightertack (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of frameworks/standards[edit]

Surprisingly, an 'encyclopedic article' on Philippine education without any mention of the Revised Basic Education Curriculum, which is the standards in use at present. --222.127.232.251 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i dont see how the education system is similar to the usa's. there is not "6-7" years of primary school. it's 6. then 4 more in high school, for a sad total of 10. the philippines is one of only 2 nations that dont provide 12 yrs of undergrad education. 124.106.148.64 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpful website[edit]

Похоже, этот форум вызывает некоторый интерес: http://eduphil.org/ - 210.213.194.35 ( обсуждение ) 07:04, 5 июля 2008 г. (UTC)

Раздел уважаемого университета предвзято [ править ]

Поскольку сам термин субъективен, вся «секция уважаемого университета» абсолютно бесполезна и неудобна для Филиппин. 121.97.211.31 ( разговорное ) 07:58, 20 сентября 2008 (UTC)

Я переработал этот раздел в раздел, посвященный международным рейтингам, поскольку это единственная часть раздела, в которой на самом деле есть цитаты, которые позволяют обсудить и сбалансировать. Последний абзац бывшего раздела, в котором перечислены «солидные» школы в разных регионах, на данный момент удален. Мы надеемся, что это устранит большую часть, если не всю предполагаемую предвзятость в разделе. Rmcsamson ( разговорное ) 17:23, 23 декабря 2008 (UTC)

Проблема авторских прав на изображение с изображением: St. Винсент Bldg.jpg [ править ]

Изображение Изображение: St. Vincent Bldg.jpg используется в этой статье под заявлением о добросовестном использовании , но в нем нет адекватного объяснения того, почему он соответствует требованиям для таких изображений при использовании здесь. В частности, для каждой страницы, на которой используется изображение, оно должно иметь объяснение, ссылающееся на эту страницу, в котором объясняется, почему его необходимо использовать на этой странице. пожалуйста, проверьте

• То, что на странице описания изображения для использования в этой статье есть обоснование того, что оно не является бесплатным .
• Ссылка на эту статью находится на странице описания изображения.

Следующие изображения также имеют эту проблему:

• Файл: TESDA philippines.JPG
• Файл: DepEd.png
• Файл: Ched logo.png
• Файл: St. Винсент Bldg.jpg

Это автоматическое уведомление FairuseBot . Для получения помощи по политике использования изображений см. Википедия: вопросы об авторских правах в СМИ . --07: 30, 31 октября 2008 г. (UTC)

Таблицы рейтингов и лиг [ править ]

Опрос 2007 г., проведенный CHED и др., Относился к периоду с 1999 по 2005 гг. Это не десятилетний период, как указано в предыдущей редакции, и отличается от периода, указанного в более ранней редакции. Кроме того, табулированный список 20 лучших рейтингов легче читается, чем плотный текстовый формат. Я не выпускник ни одного из этих высших учебных заведений, так что мне нечего терзать alma mater - только боло. Губернатория ( разговор ) 11:24, 22 февраля 2009 (UTC)

Я восстановил его до предыдущей правки с изменениями. Источник, цитируемый в оставленной вами правке (www.eskwelahan.com), не отражает ни список, который вы составили, ни заявление, которое вы делаете по поводу опроса 2007 года, относящегося к периоду с 1999 по 2005 год. Цитата в редактировании, которое я делаю был опубликован в 2007 году со ссылкой на исследование, проводимое каждые 10 лет. Нет источника, сообщающего, что охватываемый период был с 1999 по 2005 год. Что касается формата, плотный список имеет смысл, потому что это единственный способ разумно разместить тех, кто был включен в рейтинг, без необходимости участвовать в составлении списков, которые и то, и другое излишне длинно, но также уже не достаточно эффективно для того, чтобы донести мысль, о которой говорится в разделе. Вот почему выбор пал на 10 лучших. Что касается удобочитаемости,сжатие списка в форму абзаца работает, потому что он не предназначен для составления исчерпывающего списка, а является рефлексивным, который подчеркивает необходимую мысль, а также потому, что это не делает статью излишне длинной для чтения с точки зрения прокрутки вниз для получения информации который можно сжать в абзац.Rmcsamson ( разговорное ) 20:24, 22 февраля 2009 (UTC)

Я вернул раздел рейтинга университетов QS 2009 к предыдущей версии, которая не требует создания излишне длинного списка. Восстановил подзаголовок, вижу, чем он полезен. Rmcsamson ( разговорное ) 17:21, 21 мая 2009 (UTC)

Заголовок «Лучшие азиатские университеты QS 2009» слишком мал. Я так понимаю, что размер шрифта отформатирован системой. Я подумываю создать отдельную категорию для «Рейтинг лучших азиатских университетов QS 2009», чтобы исправить эту ситуацию. Есть другое мнение? Я продолжу внесение изменений, если не будет возражений или предложений. Thinkinggecko ( разговор ) 10:17, 3 ноября 2009 г. (UTC)

Я думаю, что мы можем вообще исключить отдельный раздел / категорию. В любом случае азиатский рейтинг QS 2009 - это просто еще одна таблица рейтингов. Rmcsamson ( разговорное ) 20:58, 3 ноября 2009 (UTC)

Хорошо, я включил рейтинги азиатских университетов QS в основную подкатегорию для различных международных рейтингов, учитывая, что, как вы упомянули, это всего лишь одна из многих уже указанных таблиц лиг. Кажется, это правильное решение предыдущей ситуации. Thinkinggecko ( разговор ) 13:56, 4 ноября 2009 г. (UTC)

Аккредитация уровня IV [ править ]

CHED разрешает программу аккредитации уровня IV. CHED не санкционирует аккредитацию уровня IV для учебных заведений. Если кто-то сможет найти CHED CMO наоборот, приношу свои извинения. В остальном CHED CMO 2005-01 Статья IV (e) выступает в качестве авторитета. DLSU-Manila и Ateneo вполне могли получить институциональную аккредитацию, но это не может быть институциональная аккредитация Уровня IV. Губернатория ( разговор ) 02:40, 9 ноября 2009 (UTC)

Согласно веб-сайту PAASCU [1] уровень IV аккредитации DLSU-M истек в апреле 2008 года. Таким образом, цитирование веб-сайта PAASCU не помогает утверждать, что DLSU-M имеет институциональную аккредитацию. Губернатория ( разговор ) 02:53, 9 ноября 2009 (UTC)

Согласно веб-сайту PAASCU [2], аккредитация уровня IV для ADMU истекла в мае 2009 года. Таким образом, цитирование веб-сайта PAASCU не помогает утверждать, что Ateneo Manila имеет институциональную аккредитацию. Губернатория ( разговор ) 02:57, 9 ноября 2009 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, губернатория. Я ценю сделанные дополнения, так как они, безусловно, помогают прояснить вопрос. Однако я не согласен с вашей интерпретацией CHED CMO и соответствующего положения, о котором идет речь, хотя я согласен с тем, что это авторитетный источник. Ваша интерпретация (которую вы написали в статье, если я могу указать) заключается в том, что CHED «не санкционирует» аккредитацию уровня IV для учебных заведений. Хотя верно то, что нет четких положений, регулирующих уровни институциональной аккредитации, это не означает, что предоставление уровней аккредитации для учреждений (которое, в свою очередь, основано на аккредитации программы среди других требований), запрещено. Сказать, что нет разрешения, означало бы, что существует отрицательное наложение, которое четко запрещает любое такое разрешение. Здесь ничего нет.И поскольку совершенно очевидно, что целью CHED CMO является признание школ, которые достигли уровня успеваемости, соответствующего данному уровню, мы не можем просто сбрасывать со счетов награды, подобные тем, которые присуждаются как Университету Атенео де Манила, так и Де Университет Ла Саль, которые никогда не отвергались ни Федерацией аккредитационных агентств Филиппин, ни CHED. И поскольку поднимается вопрос о том, действительно ли эти две школы получили институциональную аккредитацию Уровня IV, суть в том, что они сделали, и есть две вещи, на которые следует обратить внимание: Во-первых, сам PAASCU перечислил гранты аккредитации Уровня IV. как институциональная аккредитация. Это означает, что эти две школы БЫЛИ предоставили указанную аккредитацию на институциональном уровне. Во-вторых, обратите внимание, что гранты не были предоставлены в рамках CHED CMO 2005-01,но Приказ ЧЭД № 31, с. 1995 г., который относится к аккредитации уровня IV как аккредитации, предоставляемой учреждениям (см. Ст. 2.b.4), при этом университет Де Ла Саль получил награду в 2001 году, а университет Атенео де Манила - в 2004 году. имеют ли эти две школы институциональную аккредитацию Уровня IV, но получили ли они аккредитацию в первую очередь.

В качестве предлагаемого решения можно добавить предложение или короткий абзац, указывающие на следующее, или внести следующие изменения: Во-первых, признание того, что две упомянутые школы получили аккредитацию уровня IV, первые две в стране и единственные две при условии аккредитации IV уровня. Во-вторых, указание на то, что данная аккредитация является институциональной аккредитацией Уровня IV, как ясно показано на веб-сайте PAASCU. В-третьих, далее отмечая, что аккредитации были предоставлены в соответствии с Приказом CHED № 31, серия 1995 г., поскольку DLSU получил аккредитацию уровня IV в 2001 г., а Ateneo - в 2004 г. В-четвертых, указывая, что срок действия этих наград истек, и что до истечения срока их действия в феврале 2005 г. CHED обнародовал CHED CMO 1-2005, который заменил Приказ CHED 31 s. 1995,но это не отменяет ранее предоставленных грантов обеим упомянутым школам. Наконец, CHED CMO 1-2005 предусматривает только аккредитацию программы, тогда как ст. II (3) в нем предусматривает, что для институциональной аккредитации «должны быть сформулированы руководящие принципы и стандарты ...», что означает отсутствие четких указаний относительно того, следует ли ожидать в будущем предварительного предоставления институциональной аккредитации уровня IV.

I believe this proposed solution is a workable compromise that incorporates your astute observations and interpretation and which clarifies them in light of the other materials I have cited. Rmcsamson (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rmcsamson. Excellent solution. Thank you for your gentle, scholarly, eirenical approach. Please implement as you suggest, if you so wish.

Just as an aside, since the DLSU-M and Ateneo-M accreditations have expired, does this mean that TUA is the only HEI with current institutional accreditation in the Philippines? It could be a poor reflection on higher education in the Philippines, if that is the case. Gubernatoria (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Gubernatoria. I'll try to work out the proper implementation over the next few days. Just a bit swamped with work now. As for the DLSU and Ateneo accreditations expiring, yes I think they have. But I guess that's a normal thing, and I guess we shouldn't discount the possibility that both are working for re-accreditation. Rmcsamson (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CMO 52 of 2006 introduced Autonomous and Deregulated status. I suppose that obviates the need for DLSU and Ateneo to reapply for institutional accreditation. Presumably that makes institutional accreditation a stepping stone towards deregulated and then later autonomous status. Keep well... Gubernatoria (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Autonomous Institutions[edit]

At the moment there are 44 autonomous HEIs in the Philippines. In case anyone objects, the out-of-date partial list of autonomous institutions I just removed from the article in favour of CHED's most up-to-date list, is archived here. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC). These include the following:

5 years, 11 March 2009 to 30 March 2014 ^[1][2][3]

• Ateneo de Zamboanga University
• Our Lady of Fatima University
• Silliman University

5 years, 27 October 2003 to 30 March 2008

• University of the Immaculate Conception, Davao City

5 years, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2012 ^[4]

• Assumption College
• Ateneo de Davao University
• Ateneo de Manila University
• Centro Escolar University
• De La Salle University
• Miriam College
• St. Joseph's College of Quezon City
• Saint Louis University, Baguio City
• University of St. Louis,Tuguegarao City
• University of Santo Tomas

1 year, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2008 ^[4]

• Baliuag University
• Central Philippine University
• Holy Name University
• San Beda College
• St. Paul University Manila
• St. Paul University Dumaguete
• St. Scholastica's College
• University of San Carlos
• University of San Jose-Recoletos
• University of St. La Salle

Deregulated Institutions[edit]

In case anyone objects to the update of this section and the deletion of the obsolete information previously in the article, the deleted info is archived below. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

''5 years, 11 March 2009 to 30 March 2014

• University of the East^{[citation needed]}

5 years, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2012

• Ateneo de Naga University
• Jose Rizal University

1 year, 15 November 2007 to 14 November 2008

• Adamson University
• Far Eastern University
• Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation
• Notre Dame University
• St. Mary's University, Bayombong
• Universidad de Sta. Isabel
• University of Baguio
• University of the Cordilleras
• University of the East
• University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos

Instructional languages[edit]

The second paragraph of the lead summarizes this, citing DepEd Order 74 of 2009, Institutionalizing Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MLE). The third paragraph of the Primary school section has several {{fact}} tagged assertions regarding languages of instruction which appear to contradict that previously-cited supporting source. Someone who knows more about this topic than I probably ought to take a look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this Wtmitchell. I've made an attempt to improve that section to meet the facts and to provide references. Unfortunately, some material is unsupported because no studies have been attempted of "foundational language" usage in primary schools in the Philippines. It is too large a topic for doctoral research in the Philippines, and is not on the agenda for DepEd or CHED. Except for the Lubuagan pilot project, local languages are not used in elementary or secondary schools, mainly because teachers come from outside the local language area but usually from within the regional language area, so they use the regional language as the foundational language. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rankings and league tables[edit]

The subject of ranking of Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines is somewhat contentious. It also occupies a large amount of space in this article. I suggest it is more appropriate to have a separate article for ranking of HEIs in the Philippines, so the "Mine's Better than Your's" brigade can slog it out there instead of on the main page. If no-one objects within the next 7 days, I propose removing all of the current section, as it is at this moment, and moving it to a new article, while retaining the first paragraph and inserting a Main Article link. I invite contributors not to edit the Rankings and League Tables section of the Education article until the question of moving it or not has achieved consensus. Comments are invited. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of form, you may be right on this one. The section does appear to be a little bit bulky and detailed. But from an educational standpoint, I think it is beneficial in that it gives the reader an immediate view of the different rankings both local and international. I would suggest that we retain the section for now. However, if stability is the concern and it becomes inevitable that more information are going to be added (which may pave the way for edit-warring), then let's move the section as you suggest. Aclarado (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. Perhaps we can draft a short paragraph for whatever we leave in the section, which will be then linked to the new separate article? Something along the lines that a)there is at present no clear-cut method to rank Philippine universities, b)that certain studies have been commissioned by organizations such as CHED, and c)that some Philippine universities have also been cited in popular rankings and league tables such as the THE-QS rankings. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"There are no set methods for ranking higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. Aside from comparisons in terms of accreditation, autonomy, deregulation, and centers of excellence awarded by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), there have been attempts to rank HEIs based on student performance in licensure board exams conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). PRC and CHED sometimes publish reports of these results. Commercial ranking and league tables have been published which list some Philippine HEIs. The commercial tables are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity. See main article for detailed information."

When we do have agreement, I'd would prefer to wait until 6 January 2010 to insert the agreed short paragraph, because I originally suggested 7 days for consideration. Gubernatoria (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I recommend capitalizing "Centers of Excellence," adding "and Centers of Development," and mentioning the league tables (the now-defunct Asiaweek Asian University Rankings, the THE-QS World University Rankings, and the QS Asian University Rankings) so that we can link to the appropriate articles. Rmcsamson (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the draft together with Rmcsamson's recommendations. However, for the last two sentences, I recommend that these be concatenated or linked together for simplicity. Thus: "Commercial rankings and league tables have been published which list some Philippine HEIs, but these are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity." Aclarado (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Main article reference added. Subarticle now changed to agreed format: "There are no set methods for ranking higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines. Aside from comparisons in terms of accreditation, autonomy, deregulation, Centers of Excellence, and Centers of Development awarded by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), there have been attempts to rank HEIs based on student performance in licensure board exams conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). PRC and CHED sometimes publish reports of these results. Commercial ranking and league tables have been published, such as the now-defunct Asiaweek Asian University Rankings, the THE-QS World University Rankings, and the QS Asian University Rankings, which list some Philippine HEIs, but these are sometimes questioned as to their validity and veracity." Gubernatoria (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate facts from opinions[edit]

Article should be encyclopedic, not opinionated. The original last paragraph in the first section opined that the mandatory courses in the college curriculum were fit for the high school rather than the tertiaty level. Opinions do not belong in a Wikipedia article; an alternative way to include that "idea," if we're so keen on putting it in, is to clearly state that it's the opinion of one person, which in this case seems to be FAAP president Epitacio Palispis. However, a check of the reference tag points to the education memo order ("3"), which in turn attributes the statement to Dr. Palispis, but there is nothing in this entire article that links to the actual address that he delivered, except the unsupported claim that Dr. Palispis said this-and-that in that supposed address for graduate students that supposedly transpired in June of some year. Therefore, any statement attributable to that address is contestable at best. And I do hope that Dr. Palispis did not share such opinions, because if Dr. Palispis indeed said that the required general education courses belong in high school, resulting in the Philippines not appearing as competitive internationally, his statements show not only a lack of awareness of international education systems (many of which REQUIRE general education courses as well -- the Philippines, in fact, patterned its collegiate curriculum after that of the United States'), but a VERY short-sighted vision of what higher education should be. And that would be too embarrassing to hear from someone of his stature.

Moreover, there are other disturbing items in the paragraph. It attempts to decry why the Philippines is not a big supplier of degrees to overseas students. Whoever said that the Philippine educational system was supposed to serve overseas students to begin with? Aren't degrees in the Philippines supposed to serve Filipinos first and foremost, not foreigners? It is having ridiculous premises such as this (followed by an attack on the Philippine educational system) that contributes to the lack of credibility of articles on the Philippine educational system. I've deleted the paragraph.Arch23 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example of unacceptable editorializing is the caption of the photo of the Philippine Science High School. It should simply identify what is in the photo and not make comments such as "Note the disparity between rural and urban education facilities in the Philippines," which is also inconsistent with the way captions in the other photos are written.Arch23 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Documentation[edit]

This article BADLY needs proper documentation! EVERY SENTENCE that is not "general knowledge" needs to cite its source; otherwise, it is either fabricated or PLAGIARIZED information that does not belong in ANY publication, especially Wikipedia. Arch23 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Image gallery section[edit]

In view of the superfluous insertion of pictures into the article, I created an image gallery section to at least remedy the situation; although I think that the better place to really have these pictures would be at the Higher education in the Philippines article. -Aclarado (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Adusv.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

File:UP-OuezonHall-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Class/Grade schools in the philippiness[edit]

must the same than Indonesia and Thailand.

Heavily Outdated[edit]

This article makes no mention of the K to 12 program. Seiyko (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

K12 has been delayed[edit]

It has not started as per news article www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/482430/news/nation/trillanes-asks-sc-to-stop-k-12-program

" School year 2016-2017 will mark the nationwide implementation of the Grade 11 curriculum, to be followed by the Grade 12 curriculum in school year 2017-2018" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceSchukies (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Best universities[edit]

It is wrong that the top universities of country are all foreign universities: UST, Ateneo (Spanish); UP, DLSU (American). There should be at least two real Filipino universities among the top Philippine colleges. Possible candidates are: FEU, MCU, NU, UE, and UM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.109.19 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140215180539/http://www.ched.gov.ph/index.php/higher-education-in-numbers/foreign-students/ to http://www.ched.gov.ph/index.php/higher-education-in-numbers/foreign-students/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot II_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Tracks[edit]

The article says, "There are three choices that are available to be chosen by the students — or the so-called "specific tracks". These are:", then lists four alternatives. I was going to simplify the intro wording to something like "Three choices, termed "specific tracks", are available. These are:" and combine the last two into "Sports and Arts", but when I went looking for sources to confirm this I found http://k12philippines.com/what-students-in-the-philippines-should-know-about-k12/, which says four tracks, and https://www.gov.ph/k-12/comment-page-2/, which says three. I didn't make any change here, but it looks like one is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210010329/http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2005/02/20/OPED2005022029082.html to http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2005/02/20/OPED2005022029082.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140725194945/http://www.gov.ph:80/k-12/ to http://www.gov.ph/k-12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140725194945/http://www.gov.ph:80/k-12/ to http://www.gov.ph/k-12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616225924/http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2074,%20s.%202009.pdf to http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%20No.%2074,%20s.%202009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511190454/http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/2010%20_Sept23.xls to http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/2010%20_Sept23.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot II_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Education in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;idno=anu3845.0001.001;frm=frameset;view=image;seq=43;size=100;page=root
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511190454/http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/2010%20_Sept23.xls to http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/2010%20_Sept23.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations (HEI, LUC, SUC, TVI, & more?)[edit]

The Use sourceable abbreviations section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations says, "Avoid making up new abbreviations" and "use widely recognised abbreviations". However, this article contains a number of abbreviations (HEI, LUC, SUC, TVI, & more?) which are unexplained, unsourced, and which I, as a reader not familiar with the jargon of education systems, do not recognize. I wa able to source the meaning of HEIhere, but the others remain a mystery to me.

These unesplained abbreviations should be expanded (e.g., Higher Education Institutionz (HEIs)) on their initial use in the article body and, if possible, sourced outside of Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

CHED once used the abbreviation "SUC" in one of their press releases. YX1 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article[edit]

Hello fellow editors, since I am from the Philippines, I wish to contribute or possibly make some revisions. ThanksLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Second Issue: The Budget[edit]

Under the Issues dropdown, The second issue The Budget has not yet been written out, kindly edit that section because it only has "the second" written on it. Luis Pineda PH (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Content rescued from an earlier article version. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced and POV sections[edit]

In this edit, I've tagged several sections as Unreferenced and POV. I was tempted to either excise this content or move it here for discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM), but the content has been here in some form since at least this 2016 edit and I'm guessing that it would be generally supportable if put in less polemic/POV and more encyclopedic form. This needs attention by editors more familiar with this topic than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy of grade names[edit]

this edit caught my eye. After seeing that, I note that the classification of Grade 6 varied between Junior High School and High School in differently dated tables in the article, and that there seems to be some disconnect between those articles and the WP articles those wikilinks direct to. It seems to me that some clarification is in order here -- perhaps some inline editing or perhaps the addition of clarifying footnotes at appropriate points. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)