The proposed reframing of the General Education (GE) curriculum by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is not merely a matter of curriculum change. It has become an ideological battleground where two opposing views clash over the purpose of the university and the kind of Filipino it aims to shape.
On one side are efficiency, employability, and specialization. On the other are identity, critical citizenship, and intellectual breadth. At the center of this debate, millions of students, thousands of teachers, and the very direction of higher education in the country are quietly but decisively affected.
What is the CHED Proposal?
At its core, the reframing of GE is rooted in the long-standing argument that GE in college has become redundant after the implementation of the K–12 program. According to this logic, many former GE competencies—such as communication, humanities, and basic social sciences—have already been transferred to Senior High School. Therefore, GE in college should be reduced to:
- Provide more space for specialization and internships, and
- Align undergraduate education with the labor market and professional readiness.
Even lawmakers allied with the administration are openly pushing for the phasing out or significant reduction of GE to replace it with specialized and industry-aligned courses.
Opposition: Humanities, Social Sciences, and the Filipino Language
This is where the discussion heats up.
GE is Not Remedial; It is Formative
For teachers of humanities and social sciences, the framing that GE is merely repetitive is fundamentally wrong. College GE is not a simple repetition of content but a higher level of analysis, theory, and synthesis. Ethical philosophy, critical sociology, and history with deep debate cannot simply be transferred to Senior High School. University-level GE is about shaping the ability to think, question, and make decisions responsibly as a citizen, not just as a worker.
The Issue of Language and Culture
The wound from the removal of Filipino and Literature as core GE subjects under CMO No. 20, s. 2013 has not healed. Although the Supreme Court upheld its legality, pedagogical and cultural objections remain: how can you promote global competitiveness if you strip away your own language and historical consciousness at the university level?
