https://sites.google.com/deped.gov.ph/recess/home

Teacher Glenn Rivera TV, 109 Block 2, Lot 14, Sampaguita Street, Tiongson Subdivision, Bgy. Ibingay, Masbate (2025)

31/10/2024

Panalangin para sa Undas 2024

Mahal na Panginoon, sa espesyal na araw na ito ng Undas, kami’y dumudulog sa Iyong harapan na may pasasalamat at pagninilay. Patuloy po naming inaalala ang aming mga mahal sa buhay na yumao - sila na aming kapiling sa alaala at dasal.

Pinupuri namin ang Iyong kabutihan at walang hanggang pag-ibig, na nagbibigay sa amin ng lakas at pag-asa na magkikita-kita rin kami balang araw sa Iyong piling. Aming hinihiling, Panginoon, na ipagkaloob Mo sa kanila ang kapayapaan sa Iyong kaharian. Huwag nawang magkaroon ng takot o kalungkutan sa kanilang kaluluwa; sa halip, yakapin Mo sila ng Iyong walang hanggang awa at pagmamahal.

Hinihiling din namin ang Iyong paggabay sa aming mga pamilya dito sa lupa. Tulungan Mo po kaming maging matatag at mapayapa, at punuin ang aming mga puso ng pagmamahal sa isa't isa. Ipaalala Mo po sa amin na ang bawat sandali ay mahalaga at bawat pagsasama ay biyaya.

Nawa’y manatili kaming tapat at may pag-asa sa gitna ng lungkot, at bigyan Mo kami ng kasiguruhan na ang buhay ay hindi nagtatapos sa kamatayan kundi nagkakaroon ng bagong simula sa Iyong piling at pag-ibig.

Sa ngalan ni Hesus, na nagtagumpay sa kamatayan at nagbigay ng buhay na walang hanggan,

Amen.

30/10/2024

To S***k or Not to S***k? Discipline Beyond Sensitivity: A Call for Balance in Education
By Glenn Rivera
Reflection for Today (October 30, 2024)

As a teacher with more than a decade of experience, I’ve observed the shifts in how students respond to discipline and criticism, and I can’t help but feel a mixture of concern and reflection about where we’re heading. The issues surrounding the rising sensitivity among today’s youth and the protective instincts of their parents against strict disciplinary measures in schools are not merely personal gripes; they represent broader societal changes with implications for future generations. The question that lingers in my mind is: are we cultivating a generation that is prepared to face the real world, or are we sheltering them in ways that may do more harm than good?

In my time, respect for teachers was a given, and disciplinary actions, though sometimes harsh like beating or verbal punishment, were seen as essential for character-building. Teachers were like second parents. We expected to be reprimanded or even face punishment if we misbehaved, and though we may have resented it at the time, we ultimately grew to appreciate the lessons in respect, resilience, and accountability. Today, however, these same practices are increasingly criticized as being too harsh or even inappropriate, often leading to complaints or even legal action against teachers. I can’t deny that some of these criticisms have merit, but I worry that we may have gone too far in the other direction, to the point of always calling out teachers by way of disciplinary actions or, worse, public shaming and trial by publicity.

There’s no denying that our society is evolving. Terms like “mental health” and “safe spaces” have gained prominence, and for good reason; they address genuine issues that were often overlooked in the past. But in the rush to create kinder, more nurturing environments, I worry that we are losing sight of an essential truth: life itself is not always kind, nor is it always nurturing. By shielding students from discomfort or hard truths, are we truly preparing them to face life’s inevitable challenges, or are we merely postponing their exposure to them?

I’ve witnessed students who, when confronted with even the mildest form of criticism, react defensively or retreat entirely. Some parents, too, have become more vocal in shielding their children from any perceived negativity, often bypassing the teacher’s authority and bringing complaints directly to higher authorities or public figures like Raffy Tulfo, whose popularity reflects a distrust in traditional disciplinary systems. As much as I understand a parent’s desire to protect their child, I wonder if we are inadvertently teaching children that they have the right to reject discipline whenever it feels uncomfortable. This is where I believe the balance between discipline and sensitivity has become skewed.

Discipline in education shouldn’t mean a return to draconian practices or an endorsement of harsh or so-called corporal punishments, but it should involve a degree of firmness that fosters resilience and personal growth. We often talk about teaching students “real-life skills” like critical thinking and problem-solving, but resilience is a skill too. Handling criticism, enduring discomfort, and learning from failure are all integral to becoming a responsible adult. These are values that are not easily taught through “positive reinforcement” or "positive discipline" alone; sometimes, it is only by facing difficult truths or consequences that one learns.

I also recognize the need for teachers to adjust to modern understandings of psychology and mental well-being. The Child Protection Policy from DepEd, for example, sets important guidelines to prevent abuse and ensure that no student is ever harmed physically or emotionally by those in authority. However, policies alone cannot substitute for the nuanced understanding that comes from experience and context. I believe that discipline, when applied with empathy and consistency, is not an assault on a child’s rights but rather an act of care, one that teaches students that actions have consequences and that respect must be mutual.

Our society often ridicules the youth’s penchant for “pranks” and “jokes,” but I see it as a reflection of a generation that has been allowed to skirt the edges of accountability. Humor has its place, but when it comes at the expense of respect for authority, it’s a symptom of a deeper issue: the lack of reverence for values that should bind a community together - values like respect, resilience, and responsibility. This brings me back to the role of teachers, who are not only tasked with delivering content but with shaping character, often amid overwhelming numbers and limited resources. When there are 40 or 50 students in a class, it’s almost impossible to maintain order without some form of discipline, even if it involves “tough love.”

For me, discipline should be seen not as a remnant of an outdated system but as a necessary tool, one that can coexist with respect for a child’s dignity and emotional well-being. Like a parent, a teacher’s role is to prepare students for life outside the classroom, and that sometimes means being the “bad guy” if it ultimately leads to a stronger, more resilient student. I understand that the younger generation, along with their parents, may not always appreciate this approach, and I don’t fault them for wanting a nurturing environment. However, I believe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of sensitivity at the expense of resilience.

Ultimately, this isn’t about justifying old ways of thinking or dismissing the changes we’ve made to protect children’s rights. It’s about finding a balance. If we continue to shield students from every form of discomfort, we risk creating a society that cannot withstand hardship or face criticism - a society where entitlement replaces effort, and where respect becomes conditional. My hope is that we, as educators, parents, and policymakers, can come together to strike this balance, allowing discipline to remain a pillar of education while adapting it to the realities of the modern world. Only then can we say that we are truly preparing our students for life, in all its complexities and challenges.

28/10/2024

On Bringing Back the Hallow in Halloween: Restoring the Spirit of Holiness, Faith, Tradition, and Community
By Glenn Rivera
Reflection for Today (October 28, 2024)

As Halloween approaches each year, I often find myself reflecting on the deeper significance of this holiday, which has been increasingly overrun by commercialism, costumes, and spooky imagery. When I learned about the Catholic Church's initiative to "bring back the hallow in Halloween" and "bring back the saints in All Saints' Day," I felt a renewed sense of purpose in celebrating these days. To me, this emphasis isn’t just about changing our activities or costumes; it’s about restoring the meaning and reverence that once defined Halloween and All Saints’ Day.

From a historical perspective, Halloween originated as the eve of All Saints' Day, a sacred day to honor the saints and martyrs who embody virtues worth emulating. I think it’s easy to forget that "Halloween" actually means "All Hallows' Eve," a night of preparation for honoring these holy figures. As years passed, though, this night shifted away from its spiritual core. Now, it’s become a time of haunted houses, costumes, and commercial opportunities, mostly separated from its religious or even community-focused roots. While I understand and appreciate the fun and imagination in dressing up and decorating, I can’t help but feel that something meaningful has been lost.

When the Church proposed refocusing Halloween on its "hallow" origins, I saw it as a chance for us to reclaim what Halloween and All Saints' Day could mean to our community and families. Instead of solely celebrating fictional heroes and villains, why not remember real individuals who devoted their lives to serving others and promoting peace, justice, and compassion? Reflecting on the lives of saints offers us all a reminder of the values that bind us - humility, kindness, and selflessness. In a world often filled with division and superficiality, these values stand as a form of resistance, encouraging us to seek depth over distraction.

This initiative also brings an educational dimension to Halloween and All Saints' Day that resonates deeply with me as an educator. Reintroducing young people to the stories of saints and historical figures allows them to see that greatness isn’t found in costumes or theatrics but in real actions and sacrifices. Celebrating figures like St. Francis of Assisi, known for his profound respect for nature and the poor, or St. Teresa of Calcutta, revered for her dedication to the marginalized, reminds students and families alike that heroism and “spirit” don’t come from horror but from humanity. When we share these stories, we’re helping young people shape a worldview that sees beyond entertainment, rooting their celebrations in purpose and respect.

On a societal level, this approach to Halloween aligns well with my personal advocacy for mental health, pro-poor policies, and values-driven governance. Our modern culture is already heavy with distractions that often lead to burnout, anxiety, and isolation, especially among youth. Halloween’s current focus on extravagance and fear only adds to these pressures. By re-centering the holiday around community values and inspiring figures, we offer an antidote to the culture of excess, one that encourages gratitude and reflection rather than indulgence. In fact, I think it’s high time we reimagine these traditions to better serve our social and mental health needs.

Moreover, this movement of "bringing back the saints" can encourage communities to actively participate in service, charity, and shared values. Celebrating Halloween by, say, organizing events that honor the saints' charitable work or encourage community volunteering brings a sense of purpose to the holiday. Instead of simply buying more, we could spend time giving back, whether by collecting food donations or visiting those in need. This theme allows Halloween to be not just a holiday but a socially responsible celebration. In a society often plagued by selfish interests, this kind of approach could help mold our youth into more conscientious, compassionate citizens.

Personally, I see this as an invitation to reshape Halloween within our own families, schools, and neighborhoods. It’s an opportunity to spark conversations, not just about the saints but about what it means to live a life of purpose and kindness. Even if we still choose to dress up or carve pumpkins, we can do so while remembering the values that make our communities stronger and more compassionate. After all, Halloween should be more than just a night of costumes and candy; it can be a time to instill real values in ourselves and those around us.

Methinks, this movement to restore the “hallow” in Halloween is more than just a change in theme; it’s a call to return to a meaningful, value-centered celebration. By honoring the saints on All Saints’ Day, we’re not only reclaiming our traditions but reinforcing the core of our shared humanity. Halloween, with its rich history, has the potential to be a true celebration of community, faith, and moral inspiration. I believe that by bringing this spirit back, we don’t diminish the fun or festivity of Halloween; we enrich it, making it a holiday that celebrates not only the costumes we wear but the character we build.

27/10/2024

Beyond Bayanihan and Resilience: Demanding Accountability in Disaster Response
By Glenn Rivera
Reflection for Today (October 27, 2024)

The aftermath of typhoons in the Philippines often reveals the strength of the Filipino spirit through our bayanihan culture. Time and time again, communities pull together, lending hands, sharing resources, and providing comfort to those hit hardest by the calamities. This resilience and solidarity are heartwarming, a true testament to our values and the ties that bind us as a people. However, I can’t help but feel that our constant celebration of resiliency sometimes distracts us from the uncomfortable reality that we deserve more than just mutual support during disasters – we deserve reliable systems, transparent governance, and genuine accountability.

In recent years, I’ve seen an almost ritualistic display of politicians handing out relief goods in disaster-stricken areas. They arrive with fanfare, often followed by cameras capturing every act of charity. While I recognize the importance of distributing supplies, I believe these gestures only scratch the surface of what’s really needed. These events feel symbolic rather than transformative, a performance to signal action without addressing the root problems in our disaster preparedness. The repeated images of our leaders delivering aid reinforce a troubling narrative: that bayanihan and resilience should be our go-to solutions rather than effective government interventions and policies.

Let’s be clear – celebrating bayanihan is important, but it should never become a substitute for demanding systemic changes in how we respond to natural disasters. When politicians bring relief, we must ask, where were they in the months or years leading up to the typhoon? What preventive measures were implemented to minimize the impact on vulnerable communities? Were there enough resources allocated to ensure early warning systems, proper evacuation facilities, and resilient infrastructure?

Too often, the answer is inadequate. For instance, it’s no secret that government budgets for disaster response and risk reduction are frequently cut or reallocated, while funds for less urgent expenditures somehow remain intact. I find this imbalance troubling. How can we, in good conscience, settle for a system that praises our endurance while simultaneously neglecting to fund or implement the safeguards that would make such resilience unnecessary?

And then there’s the issue of transparency and accountability in handling disaster funds. Too often, funds earmarked for recovery efforts are shrouded in opacity, with minimal oversight. As a taxpayer, I want to see detailed reports and independent audits of where these funds go. It’s not enough to say that money is being spent on “disaster response” – there should be a clear breakdown, showing which communities are benefiting, how the resources are allocated, and who is responsible if funds are misused. I know that calling for transparency can feel futile, but I believe that persistent demands from the public can foster a culture of accountability.

Moreover, disaster preparedness and response should go beyond the short-term. As I see it, true accountability requires a focus on long-term resilience: building better drainage systems, reinforcing infrastructure, updating urban planning to prevent high-risk settlements, and educating communities on disaster response. I want a government that doesn’t merely respond to crises but actively works to prevent them or at least minimize their impact. This requires coordinated action and foresight, not just political showmanship.

I also believe that as citizens, we have a responsibility to speak out and demand better. If we remain complacent, accepting handouts in exchange for votes or settling for post-disaster aid without addressing pre-disaster prevention, we inadvertently perpetuate this cycle. Our politicians may keep showing up with relief packs, but I want them to show up with long-term solutions instead. Solutions that reflect the complexities of our vulnerability to typhoons and other natural disasters.

In the end, I hope to see a Philippines where bayanihan becomes a complementary force to a responsive and accountable government. I envision a society where community efforts are matched by comprehensive disaster management systems that minimize suffering and protect the most vulnerable. Until then, I’ll continue to call for change, knowing that our resilience as Filipinos is admirable – but it shouldn’t have to be tested year after year.

27/10/2024

"Do not Retire as Teacher I" - Challenging Old Notions: A Reflection on Teacher Career Progression and Misplaced Judgments

By Glenn Rivera

Reflection for Today (October 27, 2024)

As a teacher who has spent almost two decades in the field, I’ve seen the highs and lows of the profession, and I’ve also witnessed how career advancement policies have affected my fellow educators. I’ve often heard colleagues lament that they’re stuck as a Teacher I, or seen them judged unfairly because they did not pursue a master’s or doctorate degree. These are personal stories that highlight the flaws in our previous career progression system for teachers. Today, with the newer policies in place, I can’t help but reflect on whether we are truly moving in the right direction - or if we still have a long way to go. What are the main benefits of the career progression program? Is it really the fault of teachers if they do not get promoted in the older system just because they do not take master's or doctorate degrees? Is it a correct notion of teachers who retire as Teacher I?

Merit Over Degrees: Moving Beyond Old Limitations

The older system of promotion for teachers was highly flawed, emphasizing academic qualifications, particularly master's and doctorate degrees, as prerequisites for advancement. While higher education is important, I believe that it shouldn’t be the sole measure of a teacher’s competence. This kind of thinking creates a narrow view of what it means to be a good teacher, limiting the opportunity for those who are extremely talented and dedicated but don’t have the financial means or time to pursue advanced studies.

I’ve encountered countless teachers who have been stuck in their careers, not because they lack skill or dedication, but because they didn’t have that additional degree. These teachers are often those who work in remote areas, juggling their teaching responsibilities with raising their families, and quite frankly, trying to survive on a salary that barely meets their basic needs. It’s hard to imagine these educators being blamed for their inability to pursue further education, yet this was the reality for many under the old system.

It’s not the teachers who are at fault for failing to climb the career ladder. It was the system that demanded something unrealistic from many of them - an additional degree that not all could afford or had access to. While some teachers managed to obtain their master’s degrees, many more didn’t have that privilege. Does that make them lesser educators? Absolutely not.

Teachers should not be judged based on whether they retire as Teacher I or in a higher position. Their value lies in the impact they've had on their students, the lives they’ve shaped, and the knowledge they’ve imparted over the years. Just because they didn’t pursue further academic qualifications does not mean they were not excellent educators.

Furthermore, the new system is a step toward recognizing these realities, creating a more inclusive, equitable, and competency-based promotion path, giving teachers the chance to advance even without pursuing advanced degrees.

The Flawed Notion of Teacher I Retirees

It’s deeply unsettling to hear the assumption that teachers who retire as Teacher I are somehow "less capable" than those who achieved higher ranks. I’ve always believed that quality teaching doesn’t necessarily come with titles or degrees. It comes from the passion to educate, the perseverance to nurture young minds, and the patience to keep going despite systemic challenges.

In reality, many teachers who retired as Teacher I made more impact on their students’ lives than those who carried the title of Master Teacher. It’s unfair to judge someone’s entire career based on where they stand on the bureaucratic ladder. The truth is, many factors contributed to teachers staying at entry-level positions for decades, and these factors were largely structural and economic. Some teachers, especially in far-flung areas, had little to no access to graduate schools. Others simply couldn’t afford to spend money and time on pursuing higher degrees, especially when they were struggling to make ends meet with the salaries they had. These are realities that we can’t ignore.

To say that a teacher who retires as Teacher I failed in their career is not only insulting, it’s completely inaccurate. These educators served their communities, touched the lives of countless students, and did so without the promise of promotion or recognition. Their dedication was driven by something far deeper than titles - it was driven by a genuine love for teaching and their students.

New Opportunities for Progression: A Step in the Right Direction

I am encouraged by the reforms that the Department of Education has introduced to create a more merit-based system for career progression. The emphasis on performance and competency rather than just academic qualifications is a welcome change. Teachers can now be promoted based on their actual contributions to student learning, their leadership in school projects, and their dedication to professional growth through various trainings. This shift makes the system more equitable and recognizes that there are multiple ways to show competence in teaching.

The new system also acknowledges that not all teachers have the means to pursue master’s or doctorate degrees, but they can still advance if they show excellence in the classroom. This is especially important in areas where access to higher education is limited, and teachers have to rely on their experience and hands-on learning to become better educators.

The Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) and the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) ensure that teachers are evaluated based on a range of competencies, from content knowledge and classroom management to community involvement and professional development. This means that a teacher’s worth is no longer determined by whether they have an advanced degree, but by how well they teach and how much they contribute to their students’ development. It’s a system that better reflects the realities of the profession.

The Misconception of Higher Degrees

One of the most frustrating misconceptions I’ve encountered in this profession is the idea that teachers need a master’s or doctorate degree to be considered competent or successful. While higher degrees are beneficial for teachers who want to pursue further studies and specialize in certain areas, it shouldn’t be the only path to career advancement. Some of the best teachers I know don’t hold advanced degrees, but their classrooms are always full of learning and growth.

The focus should be on what happens inside the classroom. Is the teacher effective in helping students learn? Are they able to adapt their teaching methods to meet the diverse needs of their students? Are they actively engaging with the school community and contributing to the overall improvement of the education system? These are the questions we should be asking when considering promotions, not just how many academic papers the teacher has written.

Conclusion: Recognizing True Contributions

As we continue to move forward with the new career progression policies, I hope we leave behind the outdated mindset that a teacher’s value is tied to their academic titles. We need to recognize that teachers who retire as Teacher I, or those who never pursued master’s degrees, are not less dedicated or less competent. They are educators who have given years of their lives to shape future generations, often in difficult and underfunded circumstances.

I am hopeful that with these changes, the teaching profession will become more inclusive, rewarding teachers based on their actual contributions and commitment to education, rather than solely on their academic credentials. Let’s honor all teachers, not by their titles, but by the lasting impact they leave on the lives of their students.

26/10/2024

Iba pa rin si ChatGPT.hehehe

26/10/2024

Sabay din po ba sa no. of hours daily ninyo chers ang 60 mins for collaborative expertise session for teachers?

20/10/2024

"Do not bite the hand that feeds you" applies only to employees in the private sector or companies. Government workers aren't supposedly "fed" by the government, but the taxes of the people feed them. So whenever government officials, public corporation bosses, and school leaders tell you that, they should know that they are ill-informed.

This phrase suggests loyalty or gratitude to one's employer, commonly used in private companies where the business provides salaries directly to employees. However, in the public sector, government workers are indeed paid through taxpayers' money, making the public - not the government - responsible for their salaries.

So when government officials or public administrators use this phrase, it can come across as misplaced. Their obligation is to serve the public, and their accountability should be directed toward the people, not the institution or government itself. Criticizing government inefficiencies or misconduct should not be equated with disloyalty; rather, it can reflect responsible citizenship, ensuring that public servants remain answerable to the people who "feed" them with their taxes. This nuanced difference often gets overlooked, and your point challenges a common misuse of the phrase in the public sector.

19/10/2024

Nahihirapan ba ang anak mo sa Math? Baka personal tutor ang kailangan niya... We have Math Tutors for elementary learners.

19/10/2024

On 4Ps, TUPAD, AKAP and More - Redistributing Wealth: A Lifeline for the Poor, a Burden for the Middle Class?
By Glenn Rivera
Reflection for Today (October 19, 2024)

As I reflect on the various government dole-out programs like 4Ps (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program), TUPAD (Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers), and AKAP (Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita Program), I find myself wrestling with mixed emotions. On one hand, I know that these initiatives are meant to uplift the most disadvantaged sectors of society—the families struggling to make ends meet, the workers who have lost their jobs, and the communities hit hardest by economic crises. On the other hand, I can’t ignore the massive cost of these programs, particularly for the already burdened middle class, who bear much of the tax load that funds these initiatives.

I strongly believe in the idea of redistributing wealth to support the poor. In fact, I see it as a moral obligation of the state to address inequality by providing safety nets for those who have been left behind. Programs like 4Ps aim to ensure that even the poorest families have access to basic needs - food, education, healthcare. It's not just a handout or dole-out; it’s a lifeline. Many of these beneficiaries, after all, don’t have the same opportunities as others due to systemic issues like lack of access to quality education, healthcare, or even job opportunities. For them, these programs are a stepping stone, a way to survive and, hopefully, thrive.

However, there are harsh realities we need to face. While the intention behind these programs is noble, the ex*****on and the broader implications on society are where I see glaring problems. For one, there's the issue of sustainability. I’ve often heard concerns that some beneficiaries become "lazy" and too dependent on these handouts, waiting for the next round of aid instead of actively seeking ways to become self-sufficient. And while I empathize with their plight, I also question the long-term effectiveness of these programs if they don’t empower people to break free from the cycle of poverty. Shouldn't these initiatives be coupled with more comprehensive livelihood and job creation programs that provide real, sustainable solutions?

Moreover, corruption and inefficiency plague the system. We’ve all seen the reports of "ghost beneficiaries" - people who don't even exist but somehow manage to get funds that should have gone to actual, needy individuals. I can't help but feel frustrated when I hear of politicians using programs like TUPAD and AKAP for political gain, handing out jobs and cash in exchange for votes, rather than prioritizing the truly disadvantaged. It’s an insult to those who genuinely need the help, and it makes me question the fairness and integrity of these systems. Besides, many people report that only those who are apparently close to politicians and barangay officials get to be enlisted in these programs.

But perhaps the biggest concern I have is the huge financial cost these programs impose, especially on the middle class - the very people who are taxed the most. We often forget that the funds for these dole-out programs come from somewhere, and that “somewhere” is usually the hard-working, tax-paying middle class. Many of these people already struggle with their own financial challenges: housing loans, tuition fees, rising living expenses, and the never-ending pressure to stay afloat in a country where the cost of living continues to rise. Yet, they are the ones who shoulder much of the tax burden that sustains these programs.

I see this as a form of redistribution of wealth, yes, but at what cost? The middle class is being squeezed dry, taxed heavily to fund initiatives that, while noble in theory, are riddled with inefficiencies and potential for abuse. The government, in its effort to help the poorest of the poor, risks alienating the very people who are keeping the economy afloat, the middle class, the taxpayers. Without meaningful reforms, this creates an unsustainable situation where we are taxing one segment of the population to fund programs that may not even be reaching the intended beneficiaries effectively.

I also worry about the political implications. These programs, when mismanaged, easily become tools of patronage politics. Beneficiaries are often reduced to mere statistics or pawns in a larger political game, with aid being used to secure political loyalty. This is where transparency, accountability, and governance become critical. Without clear, transparent systems in place, we risk perpetuating the same inequalities we are trying to solve.

In my view, these government dole-out programs must be re-examined and reformed. Yes, they are crucial in redistributing wealth, if only from the truly rich, and providing immediate relief to the most vulnerable, but we need to ensure they are part of a bigger strategy to empower the poor to become self-sufficient. The government should focus on creating more jobs, investing in education, and promoting entrepreneurship or livelihood programs so that these families don’t just survive - they thrive. At the same time, we need to reduce the heavy tax burden on the middle class, who are already shouldering so much of the load.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do believe that we can do better. Redistribution of wealth should not come at the expense of one group of people, nor should it be used as a tool for political gain. It must be about empowering communities, creating opportunities, and ensuring that every Filipino, no matter their social status, has a fair chance at a better life. Only then can we say that these programs are truly fulfilling their mission.

Teacher Glenn Rivera TV

31/10/2024

30/10/2024

28/10/2024

27/10/2024

27/10/2024

26/10/2024

26/10/2024

20/10/2024

19/10/2024

19/10/2024

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category