CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009
The American conquest of the Filipino mind
The history of Philippine education entered a new paradigm upon the arrival of the ‘Thomasites’
(a shipload of American teachers composed mostly of ex-military personnel) in 1901, when the public school system was institutionalized, with a curriculum patterned after the US model of education (Viola, 2006). In his essay, “The Miseducation of the Filipino,” historian Renato Constantino writes:
“Under the guise of preparing and teaching us in self-government, the American imposition of public education was designed for the Filipinos to be Americanized in their outlook; and this was greatly attained by the use of English as the only medium of instruction (all part of subtle but extremely effective “cultural” imperialism).”
So much emphasis and interest did the United States employ for the “education” of their “little brown brothers” that publiceducation “…[sic] was run as part of the US Department of Defense to ensure compliance” (Constantino, 1970). American military authority knew well that military victory does not necessarily signify conquest. Education had to be consistent with the broad purposes of American colonial policy and no measure could quickly promote the pacificationof the islands as education.
The enactment of the Jones bill acquiesces to Constantino’s statement that the Department of Education was never entrusted to any Filipino until the establishment of the Commonwealth government. Article 23 of the Jones Act provided: “…that there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate of the United States,a vice-governor of the Philippine islands…[who] shall be the head of the executive department known as the Department of Public Instructions, which shall include the Bureau of Education…”
Malformation of Educational Curriculum:
Betraying the role of education
UP Journalism Prof. Danilo Arao contends that education is an important foundation for national development (2002). Yet, more than six decades after the so-called independence from the American colonialists, the Philippine educational policy has done so little to develop the nation and remains subservient to foreign dictates.
Dr. Edberto Villegas affirms that “the sole interest of the State in Philippine education is to ensure a curriculum that would serve to further raise the profits of imperialist Transnational Corporations and their local accomplices” (2005). He adds that DepEd’s Millennium Curriculum (Curriculum 2002) was a “streamlining” of Philippine education, collapsing subjects which imbibe social awareness, patriotic ideals and critical thinking, and abolishing subjects (and courses) not required by the imperial businesses. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) also concluded that Millennium Curriculum not only streamlines the school curriculum but sacrifices other aspects that would comprise wholistic education for students. Similar streamlining schemes are also observed in Higher Education Institutions, private or state-owned.
This treachery was further brandished by no less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Addressing a crowd of state universities and college officials, the president recognized the role of Philippine education in preparing Filipinos to become overseas contract workers. She went on with her speech encouraging the school officials to train their sights on strengthening the overseas workers base beginning with “tweaking” the school curriculum to make Filipinos the best workers in the world.
The conspiracy
The government policy of labor export which banks on international migration does not resolve the prevalent joblessness in the country (Palatino, 2004) and has contributed in the country’s chronic brain drain. By constantly slashing the budget for education, access to quality learning now becomes an even more far-cry to the Filipino youth. What then is the prime objective of the recent revisions in the educational curriculum? Who benefits from what and who plays the game?
Back in the Marcos era, prior to the enactment of The Education Act of 1982 (EA 1982), a survey called the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) was conducted in 1969 funded by the Ford Foundation. This was to evaluate the performance of the Philippine education system and explore “initiatives on the part of the Department of Education to interest the World Bank in the Philippine educational improvement” (Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1982).
The report found that the Philippine labor force was “underutilized” and the prescription was to “enhance” it by linking export-oriented economic strategies with education. Thus, upon the issuance of EA 1982, the curriculum of the first six grades was altered to serve as the “basis for the formation of trained manpower” (Ibid).
Further loans have thenceforth been granted by the World Bank to “support” the agricultural sector in teaching the farmers “the modern secrets of mechanized farming.” We have since been reliant on United States technology and other tools for agricultural production. Technical training centers and experimental agricultural schools (installed near export processing zones) were established.
Viola articulates that “the connection between educational curriculum and the needs of an export economy ensured that multinational corporations would have an abundant supply of semiskilled labor.” The kind of educational system World Bank wants to shape is to meet the manpower needs of transnationals…[and] insure the internationalization by the entire student population of values and outlooks supportive of the global capitalist system.
The need for redirection
Such is the trend in the Philippine educational system. And as such, there is an undeniable need to redirect it towards genuine national development in order to bring about social emancipation. Although there have been nationalist stirrings and efforts made by patriotic members of the intelligentsia long before (among them the nationalist Claro M. Recto), we have yet to hear a well-designed education policy that truly addresses this need (Constantino, 1970).
The transformation and reorientation of the current rotten system of education in the country is not possible without the development of a critical consciousness that reflects and acts upon the existing social (dis)order. Any meaningful change in our basic curriculum must be liberative of the docility that has long infringed our mentality, dissolving what little nationalist ideal there is left in the heart of every Filipino youth.
Philippine education, therefore, must produce Filipinos who are conscious of their country’s problems, who understand the basic necessities for a resolution, and who care enough to sacrifice for national emancipation (Constantino, 1970).
February|2009
The American conquest of the Filipino mind
The history of Philippine education entered a new paradigm upon the arrival of the ‘Thomasites’
(a shipload of American teachers composed mostly of ex-military personnel) in 1901, when the public school system was institutionalized, with a curriculum patterned after the US model of education (Viola, 2006). In his essay, “The Miseducation of the Filipino,” historian Renato Constantino writes:“Under the guise of preparing and teaching us in self-government, the American imposition of public education was designed for the Filipinos to be Americanized in their outlook; and this was greatly attained by the use of English as the only medium of instruction (all part of subtle but extremely effective “cultural” imperialism).”
So much emphasis and interest did the United States employ for the “education” of their “little brown brothers” that publiceducation “…[sic] was run as part of the US Department of Defense to ensure compliance” (Constantino, 1970). American military authority knew well that military victory does not necessarily signify conquest. Education had to be consistent with the broad purposes of American colonial policy and no measure could quickly promote the pacificationof the islands as education.
The enactment of the Jones bill acquiesces to Constantino’s statement that the Department of Education was never entrusted to any Filipino until the establishment of the Commonwealth government. Article 23 of the Jones Act provided: “…that there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate of the United States,a vice-governor of the Philippine islands…[who] shall be the head of the executive department known as the Department of Public Instructions, which shall include the Bureau of Education…”
Malformation of Educational Curriculum:
Betraying the role of education
UP Journalism Prof. Danilo Arao contends that education is an important foundation for national development (2002). Yet, more than six decades after the so-called independence from the American colonialists, the Philippine educational policy has done so little to develop the nation and remains subservient to foreign dictates.
Dr. Edberto Villegas affirms that “the sole interest of the State in Philippine education is to ensure a curriculum that would serve to further raise the profits of imperialist Transnational Corporations and their local accomplices” (2005). He adds that DepEd’s Millennium Curriculum (Curriculum 2002) was a “streamlining” of Philippine education, collapsing subjects which imbibe social awareness, patriotic ideals and critical thinking, and abolishing subjects (and courses) not required by the imperial businesses. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) also concluded that Millennium Curriculum not only streamlines the school curriculum but sacrifices other aspects that would comprise wholistic education for students. Similar streamlining schemes are also observed in Higher Education Institutions, private or state-owned.
This treachery was further brandished by no less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Addressing a crowd of state universities and college officials, the president recognized the role of Philippine education in preparing Filipinos to become overseas contract workers. She went on with her speech encouraging the school officials to train their sights on strengthening the overseas workers base beginning with “tweaking” the school curriculum to make Filipinos the best workers in the world.
The conspiracy
The government policy of labor export which banks on international migration does not resolve the prevalent joblessness in the country (Palatino, 2004) and has contributed in the country’s chronic brain drain. By constantly slashing the budget for education, access to quality learning now becomes an even more far-cry to the Filipino youth. What then is the prime objective of the recent revisions in the educational curriculum? Who benefits from what and who plays the game?
Back in the Marcos era, prior to the enactment of The Education Act of 1982 (EA 1982), a survey called the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) was conducted in 1969 funded by the Ford Foundation. This was to evaluate the performance of the Philippine education system and explore “initiatives on the part of the Department of Education to interest the World Bank in the Philippine educational improvement” (Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1982).
The report found that the Philippine labor force was “underutilized” and the prescription was to “enhance” it by linking export-oriented economic strategies with education. Thus, upon the issuance of EA 1982, the curriculum of the first six grades was altered to serve as the “basis for the formation of trained manpower” (Ibid).
Further loans have thenceforth been granted by the World Bank to “support” the agricultural sector in teaching the farmers “the modern secrets of mechanized farming.” We have since been reliant on United States technology and other tools for agricultural production. Technical training centers and experimental agricultural schools (installed near export processing zones) were established.
Viola articulates that “the connection between educational curriculum and the needs of an export economy ensured that multinational corporations would have an abundant supply of semiskilled labor.” The kind of educational system World Bank wants to shape is to meet the manpower needs of transnationals…[and] insure the internationalization by the entire student population of values and outlooks supportive of the global capitalist system.
The need for redirection
Such is the trend in the Philippine educational system. And as such, there is an undeniable need to redirect it towards genuine national development in order to bring about social emancipation. Although there have been nationalist stirrings and efforts made by patriotic members of the intelligentsia long before (among them the nationalist Claro M. Recto), we have yet to hear a well-designed education policy that truly addresses this need (Constantino, 1970).
The transformation and reorientation of the current rotten system of education in the country is not possible without the development of a critical consciousness that reflects and acts upon the existing social (dis)order. Any meaningful change in our basic curriculum must be liberative of the docility that has long infringed our mentality, dissolving what little nationalist ideal there is left in the heart of every Filipino youth.
Philippine education, therefore, must produce Filipinos who are conscious of their country’s problems, who understand the basic necessities for a resolution, and who care enough to sacrifice for national emancipation (Constantino, 1970).
0 Response to "Subjugating the Philippine System of Education"
Post a Comment