There is no shortage of conversations today about artificial intelligence (AI), digital transformation and the future of universities. We debate credentials, micro-certifications and whether traditional degrees still carry weight. But before we get carried away by the future, we need to confront a harder question.
Are we even getting the basics right?
The uncomfortable reality is that the Philippines continues to lag much of ASEAN in foundational learning. In PISA 2022, Filipino students remained near the bottom in reading, mathematics and science. The World Bank has warned of severe learning poverty, with many children struggling to read and understand a simple text by age 10. These are not abstract statistics. They are warning signals.
We can talk about artificial intelligence all we want. But if a child cannot read with comprehension, cannot write clearly and cannot compute accurately, everything else becomes fragile. Advanced skills do not stick when the foundations are weak.
In many boardrooms, leaders express frustration over rising tuition costs and graduates who struggle with communication and problem-solving. The instinct is to blame schools or policymakers. But education cannot be treated as someone else’s problem. It is deeply tied to economic competitiveness and workforce quality.
This does not mean the private sector must suddenly become educators. But it does mean business leaders can be more deliberate partners — supporting mentorship programs, collaborating on curriculum alignment, providing structured internships and investing in teacher development initiatives. Education is not just a social issue. It is a productivity issue. It is a national issue.
If we are serious about competing in ASEAN, we must recognize what other countries are doing differently.
Singapore has treated education as a long-term national strategy for decades. Strong literacy and numeracy are emphasized early and relentlessly. Critical thinking is embedded in curriculum design, not treated as an optional add-on. Even as Singapore integrates AI and digital tools in classrooms, it does so on top of strong foundations.
Malaysia has also strengthened industry-academe collaboration, especially in technical and vocational tracks. Universities and polytechnics work closely with industry clusters to ensure alignment between training and real economic demand. The message is clear: build the base, connect to industry, then scale innovation.
In contrast, we often rush to talk about future skills without repairing foundational cracks. I cringe every time I see articles or hear conversations about investing in AI education as the future of Philippine education, as if it will be a magic pill, because it definitely is not.
So what should “shaking up education” actually mean?
First, make foundational literacy and numeracy nonnegotiable — not as slogans, but as measurable outcomes. Reading with comprehension by Grade 3 should be treated like a national security objective. If a child cannot read, every subject becomes harder, including science, math, history and even values formation. We should stop romanticizing passing rates and start insisting on mastery.
Second, restore the basics without embarrassment. Writing. Spelling. Grammar. Arithmetic. Mental math. These are not old-school. These are power tools. Every advanced skill rests on them. Coding is logic plus language. Data is math plus judgment. Strategy is comprehension plus clarity. We cannot build a digital economy on weak spelling and shaky arithmetic.
Third, teach critical thinking explicitly, not implicitly. Most students are not taught how to reason. They are taught how to comply. Critical thinking is not just being opinionated. It is the ability to interpret text, spot assumptions, check sources, compare arguments and decide under uncertainty. In an AI world flooded with plausible nonsense, this becomes survival.
Fourth, redesign assessment for the AI era. If our tests reward memorization, then AI will beat humans every time. If our tests reward reasoning, explanation and applied problem-solving, then humans still win. Universities should lean into oral defenses, real-world projects, portfolios and supervised demonstrations. Credentials should reflect competence, not just completion.
Fifth, treat teachers as the frontline of national competitiveness. If we want better learning, we need better support for teaching quality and classroom practice. The World Bank itself has linked learning poverty to teaching quality and systemic issues. We can buy devices and platforms forever, but if instruction does not improve, outcomes will not improve.
Beyond policy, there is also a cultural dimension we must confront.
We have built an environment that celebrates speed over depth. We scroll more than we study. We react more than we reflect. Visibility sometimes outranks mastery. In such a culture, foundational skills erode quietly.
This is where families, schools, and yes, even employers, play a reinforcing role. Companies can value clear writing and analytical rigor in hiring and promotion decisions. Communities can celebrate academic discipline as much as athletic or entertainment success. Parents can demand comprehension, not just completion.
None of this requires hostility toward technology. On the contrary, strong foundations make technology more powerful. Artificial intelligence rewards those who can frame good questions, evaluate outputs critically and apply results wisely. It exposes those who cannot.
The future economy will not reward those who merely consume content. It will reward those who can interpret, synthesize, decide and execute.
Before we dream of becoming an AI leader in ASEAN, we must ensure that our students can read contracts, analyze data tables, construct logical arguments and defend ideas with clarity. Without these skills, no amount of digital infrastructure will deliver sustainable competitiveness.
Back to basics is not regression. It is strategy.
If we get literacy, numeracy and critical thinking right, skills will follow. If skills follow, innovation will come. But if the foundations remain weak, we will continue to produce diplomas without depth and credentials without competence.
The conversation about the future of education is important. But for the Philippines, the more urgent conversation is about its foundations.
We can continue to debate models and modalities. Or we can do the harder work of rebuilding from the ground up.
AI is coming whether we are ready or not. The only choice we have is whether we use it as a crutch or a catalyst.
If we choose catalyst, then the agenda is clear: back to basics, then forward to skills. Fix the foundations, then scale the future.
Because in an AI-powered economy, the “educated” will not be the people with the most information. It will be the people who can read deeply, think clearly, compute accurately and decide wisely.
And that is a race we cannot afford to lose.
Dr. Donald Patrick Lim is the founding president of the Global AI Council Philippines and the Blockchain Council of the Philippines, and the founding chair of the Cybersecurity Council, whose mission is to advocate the right use of emerging technologies to propel business organizations forward. He is currently the president and COO of DITO CME Holdings Corp.
