THE MIS-EDUCATION OF THE FILIPINO
Renato Constantino
1
Education is a vital weapon of a people striving for economic emancipation,
political independence and cultural renascence. We are such a people.
Philippine education, therefore must produce Filipinos who are aware of their
country's problems, who understand the basic solution to these problems, and
who care enough to have courage to work and sacrifice for their country's
salvation.
Nationalism
in Education
2
In recent years, in various
sectors of our society, there have been nationalist stirrings which were
crystallized and articulated by the late Claro M. Recto, There were jealous
demands for the recognition of Philippine sovereignty on the bases question.
There were appeals for the correction of the iniquitous economic relations between
the Philippines and the United States. For a time, Filipino businessmen and
industrialists rallied around the banner of the FILIPINO FIRST policy, and various scholars and
economists proposed economic emancipation as an intermediate goal for the
nation. In the field of art, there have been signs of a new appreciation for
our own culture. Indeed, there has been much nationalist activity in many areas
of endeavor, but we have yet to hear of a well-organized campaign on the part
of our educational leaders for nationalism in education.
3
Although most of our educators
are engaged in the lively debate on techniques and tools for the improved
instructions, not one major educational leader has come out for a truly
nationalist education. Of course some pedagogical experts have written on some
aspects of nationalism in education. However, no comprehensive educational
program has been advanced as a corollary to the programs for political and
economic emancipation. This is a tragic situation because the nationalist movement
is crippled at the outset by a citizenry that is ignorant of our basic ills and
is apathetic to our national welfare.
New
Perspective
4
Some of our economic and
political leaders have gained a new perception of our relations with the United
States as a result of their second look at Philippine-American relations since
the turn of the century. The reaction which has emerged as economic and
political nationalism is an attempt on their part to revise the iniquities of
the past and to complete the movement started by our revolutionary leaders of
1896. The majority of our educational leaders, however, still continue to trace
their direct lineal descent to the first soldier-teachers of the American
invasion army. They seem oblivious to the fact that the educational system and
philosophy of which they are proud inheritors were valid only within the
framework of American colonialism. The educational system introduced by the
Americans had to correspond and was designed to correspond to the economic and
political reality of American conquest.
Capturing Minds
5
The most effective means of
subjugating a people is to capture their minds. Military victory does not
necessarily signify conquest. As long as feelings of resistance remain in the
hearts of the vanquished, no conqueror is secure. This is best illustrated by
the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese militarists during the second
world war. Despite the terroristic regime imposed by the Japanese warlords, the
Filipinos were never conquered. Hatred for the Japanese was engendered by their
oppressive techniques which in turn were intensified by the stubborn resistance
of the Filipino people. Japanese propagandists and psychological warfare
experts, however, saw the necessity of winning the minds of the people. Had the
Japanese stayed longer, Filipino children who were being schooled under the
auspices of the new dispensation would have grown into strong pillars of the
Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Their minds would have been conditioned
to suit the policies of the Japanese imperialists.
6
The molding of men's minds is the
best means of conquest. Education, therefore, serves as a weapon in wars of
colonial conquest. This singular fact was well appreciated by the American
military commander in the Philippines during the Filipino-American War.
According to the census of 1903:
7
General Otis urged and furthered
the reopening of schools, himself selecting and ordering the text-books. Many
officers, among them chaplains, were detailed as superintendent of schools, and
many enlisted men, as teachers.
8
The American military authorities
had a job to do. They had to employ all means to pacify a people whose hopes
for independence were being frustrated by the presence of another conqueror.
The primary reason for the rapid introduction, on a large scale, of the
American public school system in the Philippines was the conviction of the
military leaders that no measure could so quickly promote the pacification of
the islands as education. General Arthur McArthur, in recommending a large
appropriation for school purposes, said:
9 This
appropriation is recommended primarily and exclusively as an adjunct to
military operations calculated to pacify the people and to procure and expedite
the restoration of tranquility throughout the archipelago.
Beginnings
of Colonial Education
10 Thus,
from its inception, the educational system of the Philippines was a means of
pacifying a people who were defending their newly-won freedom from an invader
who had posed as an ally. The education of the Filipino under American
sovereignty was an instrument of colonial policy. The Filipino has to be
educated as a good colonial. Young minds had to be shaped to conform to
American ideas. Indigenous Filipino ideals were slowly eroded in order to
remove the last vestiges of resistance. Education served to attract the people
to the new masters and at the same time to dilute their nationalism which had
just succeeded in overthrowing a foreign power. The introduction of the
American educational system was a subtle means of defeating a triumphant
nationalism. As Charles Burke Elliot said in his book, The Philippines:
11To most
Americans it seemed absurd to propose that any other language than English
should be used over which their flag floated. But in the schools of India and
other British dependencies and colonies and, generally, in all colonies, it was
and still is customary to use the vernacular in the elementary schools, and the
immediate adoption of English in the Philippine schools subjected America to
the charge of forcing the language of the conquerors upon a defenseless people.
12Of
course, such a system of education as the Americans contemplated could be
successful only under the direction of American teachers, as the Filipino teachers
who had been trained in Spanish methods were ignorant of the English language .
. .
13Arrangements
were promptly made for enlisting a small army of teachers in the United States.
At first they came in companies, but soon in battalions. The transport Thomas
was fitted up for their accomodations and in July, 1901, it sailed from San
Francisco with six hundred teachers -a second army of occupation – surely the
most remarkable cargo ever carried to an Oriental colony.
The
American Vice-Governor
14 The importance
of education as a colonial tool was never under-estimated by the Americans.
This may be clearly seen in the provision of the Jones Act which granted the
Filipinos more autonomy. Although the government services were Filipinized,
although the Filipinos were being prepared for self-government, the Department
of Education was never entrusted to any Filipino. Americans always headed this
department. This was assured by Article 23 of the Jones Act which provided:
15That there shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States, a vice-governor of the Philippine Islands, who shall have all the
powers of the governor-general in the case of a vacancy or temporary removal,
resignation or disability of the governor-general, or in case of his temporary
absence; and the said vice-governor shall be the head of the executive
department known as the department of Public Instruction, which shall include
the bureau of education and the bureau of health, and he may be assigned such
other executive duties as the Governor-General may designate.
16 Up to
1935, therefore, the head of this department was an American. And when a
Filipino took over under the commonwealth, a new generation of
"Filipino-American" had already been produced. There was no longer
any need for American overseers in this filed because a captive generation had
already come of age, thinking and acting like little Americans.
17 This does
not mean, however, that nothing that was taught was of any value. We became
literate in English to a certain extent. We were able to produce more men and
women who could read and write. We became more conversant with the outside
world, especially the American world. A more widespread education such as the
Americans would have been a real blessing had their educational program not
been the handmaiden of their colonial policy. Unfortunately for us, the success
of education as a colonial weapon was complete and permanent. In exchange for a
smattering of English, we yielded our souls. The stories of George Washington
and Abraham Lincoln made us forget our own nationalism. The American view of
our history turned our heroes into brigands in our own eyes, distorted our
vision of our future. The surrender of the Katipuneros was nothing compared to
this final surrender, this levelling down of our last defenses. Dr. Chester
Hunt characterizes this surrender in these words:
18 The
programme of cultural assimilation combined with a fairly rapid yielding of
control resulted in the fairly general acceptance of American culture as the
goal of Filipino society with the corollary that individual Americans were
given a status of respect.
19 This, in
a nutshell, was (and to a great extent still is) the happy result of early
educational policy because, within the framework of American colonialism,
whenever there was a conflict between American and Filipino goals and
interests, the schools guided us toward thought and action which could forward
American interests.
Goals of
American Education
20 The
educational system established by the Americans could not have been for the
sole purpose of saving the Filipinos from illiteracy and ignorance. Given the
economic and political purposes of American occupation, education had to be
consistent with these broad purposes of American colonial policy. The Filipinos
had to be trained as citizens of an American colony. The Benevolent
Assimilation proclamation of President McKinley on December 21, 1898 at a time
when Filipino forces were in control of the country except Manila, betrays the
intention of the colonizers. Judge Blount in his book, The American Occupation
of the Philippines, properly comments:
21Clearly,
from the Filipino point of view, the United States was now determined “to spare
them from the dangers of premature independence,” using such force as might be
necessary for the accomplishment of that pious purpose.
22 Despite
the noble aims announced by the American authorities that the Philippines was
theirs to protect and guide, the fact still remained that these people were a
conquered nation whose national life had to be woven into the pattern of
American dominance. Philippine education was shaped by the overriding factor of
preserving and expanding American control. To achieve this, all separatist tendencies
were discouraged. Nay, they had to be condemned as subversive. With this as the
pervasive factor in the grand design of conquering a people, the pattern of
education, consciously or unconsciously, fostered and established certain
attitudes on the part of the governed. These attitudes conformed to the
purposes of American occupation.
An
Uprooted Race
23 The first
and perhaps the master stroke in the plan to use education as an instrument of
colonial policy was the decision to use English as the medium of instruction.
English became the wedge that separated the Filipinos from their past and later
to separate educated Filipinos from the masses of their countrymen. English
introduced the Filipinos to a strange, new world. With American textbooks, Filipinos
started learning not only a new language but also a new way of life, alien to
their traditions and yet a caricature of their model. This was the beginning of
their education. At the same time, it was the beginning of their mis-education,
for they learned no longer as Filipinos but as colonials.
24 They had
to be disoriented form their nationalist goals because they had to become good
colonials. The ideal colonial was the carbon copy of his conqueror, the
conformist follower of the new dispensation. He had to forget his past and
unlearn the nationalist virtues in order to live peacefully, if not
comfortably, under the colonial order. The new Filipino generation learned of
the lives of American heroes, sang American songs, and dreamt of snow and Santa
Claus.
25 The
nationalist resistance leaders exemplified by Sakay were regarded as brigands
and outlaws. The lives of Philippine heroes were taught but their nationalist
teachings were glossed over. Spain was the villain, America was the savior. To
this day, our histories still gloss over the atrocities committed by American
occupation troops such as the "water cure" and the reconcentration
camps. Truly, a genuinely Filipino education could not have been devised within
the new framework, for to draw from the wellsprings of the Filipino ethos would
only have lead to a distinct Philippine identity with interests at variance
with that of the ruling power.
26 Thus, the
Filipino past which had already been quite obliterated by three centuries of
Spanish tyranny did not enjoy a revival under American colonialism. On the
contrary, the history of our ancestors was taken up as if they were strange and
foreign peoples who settled in these shores, with whom we had the most tenuous
of ties. We read about them as if we were tourists in a foreign land.
Economic
Attitudes
27 Control
of the economic life of a colony is basic to colonial control. Some imperial
nations do it harshly but the United States could be cited for the subtlety and
uniqueness of its approach. For example, free trade was offered as a generous
gift of American altruism. Concomitantly, the educational policy had to support
his view and to soften the effects of the slowly tightening noose around the
necks of the Filipinos. The economic motivations of the American in coming to
the Philippines were not at all admitted to the Filipinos. As a matter of fact,
from the first school-days under the soldier-teachers to the present,
Philippine history books have portrayed America as a benevolent nation who came
here only to save us from Spain and to spread amongst us the boons of liberty
and democracy. The almost complete lack of understanding at present of those
economic motivations and of the presence of American interests in the
Philippines are the most eloquent testimony to the success of the education for
colonials which we have undergone.
28 What
economic attitudes were fostered by American education? It is
interesting to note that during the times that the school attempts to inculcate
an appreciation for things Philippine, the picture that is presented for the
child's admiration is an idealized picture of a rural Philippines, as pretty
and as unreal as an Amorsolo painting with its carabao, its smiling healthy
farmer, the winsome barrio lass in the bright clean patadyong, and the sweet
nipa hut. That is the portrait of the Filipino that our education leaves in the
minds of the young and it hurst in two ways.
29 First, it
strengthens the belief (and we see this in adults) that the Philippines is
essentially meant to be an agricultural country and we can not and should not
change that. The result is an apathy toward industrialization. It is an idea
they have not met in school. There is further, a fear, born out of that early
stereotype of this country as an agricultural heaven, that industrialization is
not good for us, that our national environment is not suited for an industrial
economy, and that it will only bring social evils which will destroy the
idyllic farm life.
30 Second,
this idealized picture of farm life never emphasizes the poverty, the disease,
the cultural vacuum, the sheer boredom, the superstition and ignorance of
backward farm communities. Those who pursue higher education think of the farm
as quaint places, good for an occasional vacation. Their life is rooted in the
big towns and cities and there is no interest in revamping rural life because
there is no understanding of its economic problems. Interest is limited to
aretsian wells and handicraft projects. Present efforts to uplift the
conditions of the rural masses merely attack the peripheral problems without
admitting the urgent need for basic agrarian reform.
31 With
American education, the Filipinos were not only learning a new language; they
were not only forgetting their own language; they were starting to become a new
type of American. American ways were slowly being adopted. Our consumption
habits were molded by the influx of cheap American goods that came in
duty-free. The pastoral economy was extolled because this conformed with the
colonial economy that was being fostered. Our books extolled the western
nations as peopled by superior beings because they were capable of
manufacturing things that we never thought we were capable of producing. We
were pleased by the fact that our raw materials could pay for the American
consumption goods that we had to import. Now we are used to these type of
goods, and it is a habit we find hard to break, to the detriment of our own
economy.
32 We never
thought that we too could industrialize because in school we were taught that
we were primarily an agricultural country by geographical location and by the
innate potentiality of our people. We were one with our fellow Asians in
believing that we were not cut out for an industrialized economy. That is why
before the war, we looked down upon goods made in Japan despite the fact that
Japan was already producing commodities at par with the West. We could never
believe Japan, an Asian country, could attain the same superiority as America,
Germany or England. And yet, it was "made in Japan" airplanes,
battleships and armaments that dislodged the Americans and the British from
their positions of dominance during the Second World War. This is the same
attitude that has put us out of step with our Asian neighbors who already realize
that colonialism has to be extirpated from their lives if they want to be free,
prosperous, and happy.
TRANSPLANTATION
OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
33 American
education in effect transplanted American political institutions and ideas into
the Philippines. Senator Renato, in his last major address at the University of
the Philippines, explained the reason for this. Speaking of political parties,
Recto said:
34It is to be deplored that our
major political parties were born and nurtured before we had attained the status
of a free democracy. The result was that they have come to be caricatures of
their foreign model with its known characteristics – patronage, division of
spoils, political bossism, partisan treatment of vital national issues. I say
caricatures because of their chronic shortsightedness respecting those ultimate
objectives the attainment of which was essential to a true and lasting national
independence. All throughout the period of American colonization, they allowed
themselves to become more and more the tools of colonial rule and less and less
the interpreters of the people’s will and ideal. Through their complacency, the
new colonizer was able to fashion, in exchange for sufferance of oratorical
plaints for independence, and for patronage, rank, and sinecure, a regime of
his own choosing, for his own aims, and in his own self-interest.
35 The
Americans were confronted with the dilemma of transplanting their political
institutions and yet luring the Filipinos into a state of captivity. It was
understandable for American authorities to think that democracy can only mean
the American type of democracy, and thus they foisted on the Filipinos the
institutions that were valid for their own people. Indigenous institutions
which could have led to the evolution on native democratic ideas and
institutions were disregarded.
36 No
wonder, we, too, look with hostility upon countries who try to develop their
own political institutions according to the needs of their people without being
bound by Western political procedures. We have been made to believe in certain
political doctrines as absolute and the same for all peoples. An example of
this is the belief in freedom of the press. Here, the consensus is that we
cannot nationalize the press because it would be depriving foreigners of the
exercise of freedom of the press. This may be valid for strong countries like
the United States where there is no threat of foreign domination, but
certainly, this is dangerous for an emergent nation like the Philippines where
foreign control has yet to be weakened.
RE-EXAMINATION
DEMANDED
37 The new
demands for economic emancipation and the assertion of our political
sovereignty leave our educators no other choice but to re-examine their
philosophy, their values, and their general approach to the making of the
Filipino who will institute, support, and preserve the nationalist aims. To
persist in the continuance of a system which was born under the exigencies of
colonial rule, to be timid in the face of traditional opposition would only result
in the evolution of an anomalous educational system which lags behind the
urgent economic and political changes that the nation is experiencing.
38 What then
are the nationalist tasks for Philippine education? Education must be seen not
as an acquisition of information but as the making of man so that he may
function most effectively and usefully within his own society. Therefore,
education can not be divorced from the society of a definite country at a
definite time. It is a fallacy to think that educational goals should be the
same everywhere and that therefore what goes into the making of a well-educated
American is the same as what should go into the making of the well-educated
Filipino. This would be true only if the two societies were at the same political,
cultural, and economic level and had the same political, cultural, and economic
goals.
39 But what
has happened in this country? Not only do we imitate Western education, we have
patterned our education after the most technologically advanced Western nation.
The gap between the two societies is very large. In fact, they are two entirely
different societies with different goals.
ADOPTION
OF WESTERN VALUES
40 Economically,
the U.S. is an industrial nation. It is a fully developed nation, economically
speaking. Our country has a colonial economy with a tiny industrial base – in
other words, we are backward and underdeveloped. Politically, the U.S. is not
only master of its own house; its control and influence extends to many other
countries all over the world. The Philippines has only lately emerged from
formal colonial status and it still must complete its political and economic
independence.
41 Culturally,
the U.S. has a vigorously and distinctively American culture. It is a nation
whose cultural institutions have developed freely, indigenously, without
control or direction from foreign sources, whose ties to its cultural past are
clear and proudly celebrated because no foreign power has cause no foreign
culture has been superimposed upon it destroying, distorting its own past and
alienating the people from their own cultural heritage.
42 What are
the characteristics of American education today which spring from its economic,
political, and cultural status? What should be the characteristics of our own education
as dictated by our own economic, political, and cultural conditions? To
contrast both is to realize how inimical to our best interests and progress is
our adoption of some of the basic characteristics and values of American
education.
43 By virtue
of its world leadership and its economic interests in many parts of the world,
the United States has an internationalist orientation based securely on a
well-grounded, long-held nationalistic viewpoint. U.S. education has no urgent
need to stress the development of American nationalism in its young people.
Economically, politically, culturally, the U.S. is master of its own house.
American education, therefore, understandably lays little emphasis on the kind
of nationalism we Filipinos need.
44 Instead,
it stresses internationalism and underplays nationalism. This sentiment is
noble and good but when it is inculcated in a people who have either forgotten
nationalism or never imbibed it, it can cause untold harm. The emphasis on
world brotherhood, on friendship for other nations, without the firm foundation
of nationalism which would give our people the feeling of pride in our own
products and vigilance over our natural resources, has had very harmful
results. Chief among these is the transformation of our national virtue of
hospitality into a stupid vice which hurts us and makes us the willing dupes of
predatory foreigners.
UN-FILIPINO
FILIPINOS
45 Thus we
complacently allow aliens to gain control of our economy. We are even proud of
those who amass wealth in our country, publishing laudatory articles about
their financial success. We love to hear foreigners call our country a paradise
on earth, and we never stop to think that it is a paradise only for them but
not for millions of our countrymen. When some of our more intellectually
emancipated countrymen spearhead moves for nationalism, for nationalization of
this or that endeavor, do the majority of Filipinos support such moves?
46 No, there
is apathy because there is no nationalism in our hearts which will spur us to
protect and help our own countrymen first. Worse, some Filipinos even worry
about the sensibilities of foreigners lest they think ill of us for supposedly
discriminating against them. And worst of all, many Filipinos will even oppose
nationalistic legislation either because they have become the willing servants
of foreign interests or because, in their distorted view, we Filipinos can not
progress without the help of foreign capital and foreign entrepreneurs.
47 In this
part of the world, we are well nigh unique in our generally non-nationalistic
outlook. What is the source of this shameful characteristic of ours? One
important source is surely the schools. There is little emphasis on
nationalism. Patriotism has been taught us, yes, but in general terms of love
of country, respect for the flag, appreciation for the beauty of our
countryside, and other similarly innocuous manifestations of our nationality.
48 The
pathetic result of this failure of Philippine education is a citizenry
amazingly naïve and trusting in its relations with foreigners, devoid of the
capacity to feel indignation even in the face of insults to the nation, ready
to acquiesce and even to help aliens in the despoliation of our natural wealth.
Why are the great majority of our people so complaisant about alien economic
control? Much of the blame must be laid at the door of colonial education.
Colonial education has not provided us with a realistic attitude toward other
nations, especially Spain and the United States. The emphasis in our study of
history has been on the great gift that our conquerors have bestowed upon us. A
mask of benevolence was used to hide the cruelties and deceit of early American
occupation.
49 The noble
sentiments expressed by McKinley were emphasized rather than the ulterior
motives of conquest. The myth of friendship and special relations is even now
continually invoked to camouflage the continuing iniquities in our
relationship. Nurtured in this kind of education, the Filipino mind has come to
regard centuries of colonial status as a grace from above rather than as a
scourge. Is it any wonder then that having regained our independence we have
forgotten how to defend it? Is it any wonder that when leaders like Claro M.
Recto try to teach us how to be free, the great majority of the people find it
difficult to grasp those nationalistic principles that are the staple food of
other Asian minds? The American architects of our colonial education really
labored shrewdly and well.
THE
LANGUAGE PROBLEM
50 The most
vital problem that has plagued Philippine education has been the question of
language. Today, experiments are still going on to find out whether it would be
more effective to use the native language. This is indeed ridiculous since an
individual cannot be more at home in any other language than his own. In every
sovereign country, the use of its own language in education is so natural no
one thinks it could be otherwise.
51 But here,
so great has been our disorientation caused by our colonial education that the
use of our own language is a controversial issue, with more Filipinos against
than in favor! Again, as in the economic field Filipinos believe they cannot
survive without America, so in education we believe no education can be true
education unless it is based on proficiency in English.
52 Rizal
already foresaw the tragic effects of a colonial education when, speaking
through Simoun, he said:
53You ask for equal rights, the
Hispanization of your customs, and you don’t see that what you are begging for
is suicide, the destruction of your nationality, the annihilation of your
fatherland, the consecration of tyranny! What will you be in the future? A
people without character, a nation without liberty – everything you have will
be borrowed, even your very defects!..... What are you going to do with
Castilian, the few of you who will speak it? Kill off your own originality,
subordinate your thoughts to other brains, and instead of freeing yourselves,
make yourselves slaves indeed! Nine-tenths of those of you who pretend to be
enlightened are renegades to your country! He among you who talks that language
neglects his own in such a way that he neither writes it nor understands it,
and how many have I not seen who pretended not to know a single word of it!
54 It is
indeed unfortunate that teaching in the native language is given up to second
grade only, and the question of whether beyond this it should be English or
Pilipino is still unsettled. Many of our educational experts have written on
the language problem, but there is an apparent timidity on the part of these
experts to come out openly for the urgent need of discarding the foreign
language as the medium of instruction in spite of remarkable results shown by
the use of the native language. Yet, the deleterious effects of using English
as the medium of instruction are many and serious. What Rizal said about
Spanish has been proven to be equally true for English.
BARRIER
TO DEMOCRACY
55 Under the
system maintained by Spain in the Philippines, educational opportunities were
so limited that learning became the possession of a chosen few. This
enlightened group was called the ilustrados. They constituted the elite. Most
of them came from the wealthy class because this was the only class that could
afford to send its sons abroad to pursue higher learning. Learning, therefore,
became a badge of privilege. There was a wide gap between the ilustrados and
the masses. Of course, many of the ilustrados led the propaganda movement, but
they were mostly reformers who wanted reforms within the framework of Spanish
education. Many of them were the first to capitulate to the Americans, and the
first leaders of the Filipinos during the early years of the American regime
came from this class. Later they were supplanted by the products of American
education.
56 One of
the ostensible reasons for imposing English as the medium of instruction was
the fact that English was the language of democracy, that through this tongue
the Filipinos would imbibe the American way of life which makes no distinction
between rich and poor and which gives everyone equal opportunities. Under this
thesis, the existence of an ilustrado class would not long endure because all
Filipinos would be enlightened and educated. There would be no privileged
class. In the long run, however, English perpetuated the existence of the
ilustrados – American ilustrados who, like their counterparts, were strong
supporters of the way of life of the new motherland.
57 Now we
have a small group of men who can articulate their thoughts in English, a wider
group who can read an speak in fairly comprehensible English and a great mass
that hardly expresses itself in this language. All of these groups are hardly
articulate in their native tongues because of the neglect of our native
dialects, if not the deliberate attempts to prevent their growth.
58 The
result is a leadership that fails to understand the needs of the masses because
it is a leadership that can communicate with the masses only in general and
vague terms. This is one reason why political leadership remains in a vacuum.
This is the reason why issues are never fully discussed. This is the reason why
orators with best inflections, demagogues who rant and rave, are the ones that
flourish in the political arena: English has created a barrier between the
monopolists of power and the people: English has become a status symbol, while
the native tongues are looked down upon. English has given rise to a bifurcated
society of fairly educated men and the masses who are easily swayed by them. A
clear evidence of the failure of English education is the fact that politicians
address the masses in their dialects. Lacking mastery of the dialect, the
politicians merely deal in generalities.
59 Because
of their lack of command of English, the masses have gotten used to only
half-understanding what is said to them in English. They appreciate the sounds
without knowing the sense. This is a barrier to democracy. People don’t even
think it is their duty to know, or that they are capable of understanding national
problems. Because of the language barrier, therefore, they are content to leave
everything to their leaders. This is one of the root causes of their apathy,
their regionalism or parochialism. Thus, English which was supposedly
envisioned as the language of democracy is in our country a barrier to the full
flowering of democracy.
60 In 1924
the eminent scholar, Najib Saleeby, wrote on the language of education in the
Philippines. He deplored that attempt to impose English as the medium of
instruction. Saleeby, who was an expert on the Malayo-Polynesian languages,
showed that Tagalog, Visayan, Ilocano, and other Philippine dialects belong to
the same linguistic tree. He said:
61The
relation the Tagalog holds to the Bisaya or to the Sulu is very much like or
closer than that of the Spanish to the Italian. An educated Tagalog from
Batangas, and an educated Bisayan from Cebu can learn to understand each other
in a short space of time and without much effort. A Cebu student living in
Manila can acquire practical use and good understanding of Tagalog in less than
three months. The relation between Tagalog and Malay is very much the same as
that of Spanish and French.
62 This was
said 42 years ago when Tagalog movies, periodicals, radio programs had not yet
attained the popularity that they enjoy today all over the country. Saleeby
further states:
63Empirically neither the Spanish
nor the English could be a suitable medium for public instruction in the
Philippine Islands. It does not seem possible that either of them can become
the common or national language of the Archipelago. Three centuries of Spanish
rule and education failed to check use of the vernacular. A very small minority
of Filipinos could speak Spanish in 1898, but the great mass of the people
could neither use nor understand it. Twenty – five years of intensive English
education has produced no radical change. More people at present speak English
than Spanish, but the great majority hold on to the local dialect. The Spanish
policy might be partially justified on colonial and financial grounds, but the
American policy cannot be so defended. It should receive popular free choice,
or give proof of its practicability by showing actual and satisfactory results.
The people have as yet has no occasion to declare their free will, and the
present policy must be judged on its own merits and on conclusive evidence …
But teaching English broadcast and enforcing its official use is one thing, and
its adoption as the basis of education and as the sole medium of public instruction
is a completely different matter. This point cannot be fully grasped or
comprehended without special attention and experience in colonial education and
administration. Such policy is exalted and ambitious to an extreme degree.
64It aims at something unknown
before in human affairs. It is attempting to do what ancient Persia, Rome,
Alexander the Great and Napoleon failed to accomplish. It aims at nothing less
than the obliteration of the tribal differences of the Filipinos, the
substitution of English for the vernacular dialects as a home tongue, and
making English the national, common language of the Archipelago.
65 This is
more true today. Very few college students can speak except in mixed English
and the dialect. Our Congress has compounded their confusion by a completely
unwarranted imposition of 24 units of Spanish.
IMPEDIMENTS
TO THOUGHT
66 A foreign
language is an impediment to instruction. Instead of learning directly through
the native tongue, a child has first to master a foreign tongue, memorize its
vocabulary, get accustomed to its sounds, intonations, accents, just to discard
the language later when he is out of school. This does not mean that foreign
languages should not be taught. Foreign languages should be taught and can be
taught more easily after one has mastered his own tongue.
67 Even if
the Americans were motivated by the sincere desire of unifying the country
through the means of a common tongue, the abject results of instruction in
English through the six decades of American education should have awakened our
educators to the fact that the learning process has been disrupted by the
imposition of a foreign language. From 1935, when the Institute of National
Language was organized, very feeble attempts have been made to abandon the teaching
of English. Our educators seem constantly to avoid the subject of language, in
spite of the clear evidence of rampant ignorance among the products of the
present educational system.
68 This has
resulted in the denial of education to a vast number of children who after the
primary grades no longer continue schooling. In spite of the fact that the
national language today is understood all over the country, no one is brave
enough to advocate its use as the medium of instruction. There is the constant argument
that new expenditures, new efforts in the publication of new textbooks will be
required. There are arguments about the dearth of materials in the national
language, but these are feeble arguments that merely disguise the basic
opposition of our educational leaders to use what is native. Thus the products
of the Philippine educational system, barring very few exceptions, are
Filipinos who do not have a mastery of their native tongue because of the
deliberate neglect of those responsible for the education of the citizens of
the nation.
69 A foreign
tongue as a medium of instruction constitutes an impediment to learning and to
thinking because a student first has to master new sounds, new inflection, new
sentence constructions. His innermost thoughts find difficulty of expression,
and lack of expression in turn prevents the further development of thought.
Thus we find in our society a deplorable lack of serious thinking among great
sections of the population. We half understand books and periodicals written in
English. We find it an ordeal to communicate with each other through a foreign
medium, and yet we have so neglected our native language that we find ourselves
at a loss in expressing ourselves in this language.
70 Language
is a tool of the thinking process. Through language, thought develops, and the
development of thought leads to the further development of language. But when a
language becomes a barrier to thought, the thinking process is impeded or
retarded and we have the resultant cultural stagnation. Creative thinking,
analytic thinking, abstract thinking are not fostered because the foreign
language makes the student prone to memorization. Because of the mechanical
process of learning, he is able to get only a general idea but not a deeper
understanding. So, the tendency of students is to study in order to be able to
answer correctly and to pass the examinations and thereby earn the required
credits. Independent thinking is smothered because the language of learning
ceases to be the language of communication outside the classroom. A student is
mainly concerned with the acquisition of information. He is seldom able to
utilize this information for deepening his understanding of his society’s
problems.
71 Our
Institute of National Language is practically neglected. It should be one of
the main pillars of an independent country. Our educators are wary about
proposing the immediate adoption of the national language as the medium of
instruction because of what they consider as opposition of other language groups.
This is indicative of our colonial mentality. Our educators do not see any
opposition to the use of a foreign language but fear opposition to the use of a
foreign language but fear opposition to the use of the national language just
because it is based on one of the main dialects. The fact that one can be
understood in any part of the Philippines through the national language, the
fact that periodicals in the national language and local movies have a mass
following all over the islands, shows that, given the right support, the
national language would take its proper place.
72 Language
is the main problem, therefore. Experience has shown that children who are
taught in their native tongue learn more easily and better than those taught in
English. Records of the Bureau of Public Schools will support this. But mere
teaching in the national language is not enough. There are other areas that
demand immediate attention.
73 Philippine
history must be re-written from the point of view of the Filipino. Our economic
problems must be presented in the light of nationalism and independence. These
are only some of the problems that confront a nationalist approach to
education. Government leadership and supervision are essential. Our educators
need the support of legistrators in this regard. In this connection, the
private sector has also to be strictly supervised.
THE
PRIVATE SECTOR
74 Before
the second world war, products of the Philippine public school system looked
down upon their counterparts in the private schools. It is generally accepted
that graduates of the public schools at that time were superior to the products
of the private institutions in the point of learning. There were exclusive
private institutions but these were reserved for the well-to-do. These schools
did not necessarily reflect superiority of instruction. But they reflected
superiority of social status.
75 Among
students of the public schools, there was still some manifestation of concern
for national problems. Vestiges of the nationalistic tradition of our
revolution remained in the consciousness of those parents who had been caught
in the main-stream of the rebellion, and these were passed on to the young. On
the other hand, apathy to national problems was marked among the more affluent
private school students whose families had readily accepted American rule.
76 Today,
public schools are looked down upon. Only the poor send their children to these
schools. Those who can afford it, or those who have social pretentions, send
their children to private institutions. The result has been a boom in private
education, a boom that unfortunately has seen the proliferation of diploma
mills. There were two concomitant tendencies that went this trend. First was
the commercialization of education. A lowering of standards resulted because of
the inadequate facilities of the public schools and the commercialization in
the private sector. It is a well known fact that classes in many private
schools are packed and teachers are overloaded in order to maximize profits.
Second, some private schools which are owned and operated by foreigners and
whose social science courses are handled by aliens flourished. While foreigners
may not be anti-Filipino, they definitely cannot be nationalistic in
orientation. They think as foreigners and as private interests. Thus the
proliferation of private schools and the simultaneous deterioration of public
schools have resulted not only in lower standards but also in a definitely
un-Filipino education.
77 Some
years ago, there was a move to grant curricular freedom to certain qualified
private institutions as well as wider leeway for self-regulation. This was a
retrograde step. It is true that this move was in answer to charges that state
supervision would enhance regimentation. But in a country that is just
awakening to nationalist endeavors, it is the duty of a nationalist
administration to see to it that the molding of minds is safely channeled along
nationalistic lines. The autonomy of private institutions may be used to
subvert nationalist sentiments especially when ownership of schools and
handling of social sciences are not yet Filipinized. Autonomy of private
institutions would only dilute nationalist sentiments either by foreign
subversion or by commercialization.
OTHER
EDUCATIONAL MEDIA
78 While the
basic defect in the educational system has been responsible for the lack of
nationalist ideals, there are other media and facilities that negate whatever
gains are made in some sectors of the educational field. The almost unilateral
source of news, films, and other cultural materials tends to distort our
perspective. American films and comics, American press services, fellowships in
America, have all contributed to the almost total Americanization of our
attitudes. A distinct Filipino culture cannot prevail if an avalanche of
western cultural materials suffocates our relatively punny efforts in this
direction.
NEEDED:
FILIPINOS
79 The
education of the Filipino must be a Filipino education. It must be based on the
needs of the nation and the goals of the nation. The object is not merely to
produce men and women who can read and write or who can add and subtract. The
primary object is to produce a citizenry that appreciates and is conscious of
its nationhood and has national goals for the betterment of the community, and
not an anarchic mass of people who know how to take good care of themselves
only. Our students hear Rizal and Bonifacio but are their teachings related to
our present problems or do they merely learn of anecdotes and incidents that
prove interesting to the child’s imagination?
80 We
learned to use American criteria for our problems and we look at our prehistory
and our past with the eyes of a visitor. A lot of information is learned but
attitudes are not developed. The proper regard for things Philippine, the
selfish concern over the national fate ---these are not at all imbedded in the
consciousness of students. Children and adolescents got to school to get a
certification or diploma. They try to learn facts but the patriotic attitude is
not acquired because of too much emphasis on forms.
81 What
should be the basic objective of education in the Philippines? It is merely to
produce mean and women who can read and write? If this is the only purpose,
then education is directionless. Education should first of all assure national
survival. No amount of economic and political policy can be successful if the
educational program does not imbue prospective citizens with the proper
attitudes that will ensure the implementation of these goals and policies.
Philippines education policies should be geared to the making of Filipinos.
These policies should see to it that schools produce men and women with minds
and attitudes that are attuned to the needs of the country.
82 Under
previous colonial regimes, education saw to it that the Filipino mind was
subservient to that of the master. The foreign overlords were esteemed. We were
not taught to view them objectively, seeing their virtues as well as their
faults. This led our citizens to form a distorted opinion of the foreign
masters and also of themselves. The function of education now is to correct
this distortion. We must now think of ourselves, of our salvation, of our
future. And unless we prepare the minds of the young for this endeavor, we shall
always be a pathetic people with no definite goals and no assurance of
preservation.
(1959)
Meet the Writer
RENATO
CONSTANINO,
born in Manila on March 10, 1919, was the eldest of three children of Atty.
Amador Constantino and Francisca Reyes.
Constantino was a prolific writer. He wrote around 30 books and numerous
pamphlets and monographs. Among his well-known books are A Past Revisited and The Continuing Past (a two-volume history of
the Philippines), The Making of a
Filipino (a biography of Claro M. Recto), Neo-colonial Identity and Counter-Consciousness, and The Nationalist Alternative. Several of
his books have been translated into Japanese and The Nationalist Alternative has a Malaysian translation.
His writings invariably reflected his nationalist, democratic,
anti-colonial and anti-imperialist perspective whether he was writing
historical articles or articles on the economy, Philippine society and culture.
Because of what were then regarded as his radical views and his criticisms of
those in power, he was persecuted many times in his life. He lost his position
in the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1951 and thereafter he was prevented
from getting a job because intelligence agents discouraged employers from
hiring him on the ground that he was a security risk. Off and on during his
life, his articles were refused by major papers which used to print his works.
In fact, his most widely read essay, The
Miseducation of the Filipino, had to wait five years before it saw print. A
few years before martial law, he was frequently criticizing Ferdinand and
Imelda Marcos in his columns. These columns were published in a book, The Marcos Watch, just two weeks before
Marcos declared martial law. When martial law was declared, he was placed under
house arrest for seven months and not allowed to travel abroad for several
years.
Recognition of Constantino's work came in his later years, among them
Nationalism awards from Quezon City in 1987, Manila in 1988, The Civil
Liberties Union in 1988, and U.P. Manila in 1989. These were followed by
Manila's Diwa ng Lahi Award in 1989, a Doctor of Arts and Letters (honoris
causa) from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines in 1989 and a Doctor
of Laws (honoris causa) from the University of the Philippines in 1990.
Renato Constantino died on September 15, 1999. He left behind his wife
and collaborator, Letizia Roxas, his son Renato, Jr. and daughter-in-law
Lourdes Balderrama, his daughter Karina and her husband, Randy S. David, eight
grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.
(http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Renato_Constantino)
0 comments