The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) have begun calling institutions and individuals in the college teaching profession, among others, to participate in the Department of Education (DepEd) initiatives for basic and functional literacy. Why not?

In fact, many of us have been doing that for years, albeit not in our regular order of extension work priorities. The ability to read, understand, analyze, and communicate meaningfully is the foundation of education, active citizenship, and social development. We completely understand the call, knowing the gravity of the Philippines’ literacy crisis.

Many thanks to EDCOM II for ushering us in a decisive moment to end that crisis with its National Education and Workforce Development Plan (NatPlan) 2026-2035, and I know that we in the higher education institutions (HEIs) will be guided by all this and more (will is the operative word).

But using the communication lens, there is an important question that cannot be ignored: where are the documents that constitute this call? The Senate’s February 6 news release, picked up by two newspapers, mentions “a memorandum” and “Basic and Functional Literacy Framework,” but at present, it is unclear whether these exist, what they contain, and how HEIs should understand their role in it. If a memo already exists, it is important to know: What is the CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) number? And if there is already a framework, where can it be found and to whom was it explained? This question is not merely technical. 

In the realm of comm, it is clear that a policy is not just a goal, but a text. It can be a set of statements that define roles, scope, and responsibilities. When a call precedes a document, confusion arises as to whether it is an invitation, a suggestion, or a de facto mandate.

For decades, HEI faculty members have been government partners in various forms of extension work: community education, literacy programs, teacher training, and other social work. From a comm perspective, these activities are forms of engagement, building both meaning and capacity with communities. But official reports, including the EDCOM II studies, also acknowledge that CHED has long lacked clear direction. When the central message is unclear and priorities fluctuate, results are fragmented efforts which  are difficult to measure, explain, and defend over time. Hahawak pa ba ng walis ang mga propesor (will professors still be holding brooms)?

Communicators view the documented rise of college-unprepared students, and the alarming dropout rate as signs of a breakdown in the flow of educational communication; there are skills and meanings that have not been properly transmitted to lower levels. If the solution to this is to further expand the role of professors without clear documentation and boundaries, there is a risk of normalizing remediation in higher education, rather than fixing basic education from its roots.

Another important thing: the possibility of retroactively changing standards. When a new framework is introduced without a clear date, scope, and transitional guidelines, who will say which extension work will be recognized? Who will determine what is deficient or sufficient? The power to set meaning is political power. If it is not clearly articulated, the professional recognition of teachers and even the reputation of institutions are at stake. The word “support” is often used in statements. Support is not a neutral word, though; it can mean voluntary cooperation, or tacit acceptance of responsibility. 

Sans a clear memo or framework or both, support becomes open to interpretation and more often than not, results in additional work without clear incentives. In higher education, work not recognized in teaching load, research credit, promotion, or tenure becomes invisible labor.

With a new mandate, it’s natural that the State should also communicate clearly: where the document is, what its scope is, and what it entails. Collaboration is a process of clear negotiation, not a call to action that is expected to be followed even without a text.

A truly outcomes-based approach to literacy begins with sound and transparent communication of policy. Professors and universities are not just implementers, but partners in the creation of knowledge. (Shoutout to people in the HEIs who think about quality more than quantity in research production.) If documents remain silent or absent, the problem is not a lack of interest on the part of academia, but a lack of a clear message from the State.

The silence of memos and frameworks is not just a matter of administration but of public accountability, too. Latest memos 1 to 20 are carried by the CHED website, but they’re all “series of 2025,” without that of 2026.