Prof. Renato Constantino, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.1. No.1 (1970)
Education is a vital weapon of a people striving for economic
emancipation, political independence and cultural renaissance. 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
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.
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
programme has been advanced as a corollary to the programmes 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
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
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.
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:
“….General Otis urged and furthered the reopening of schools, himself
selecting and ordering the textbooks. Many officers, among them
chaplains, were detailed as superintendent of schools, and many enlisted
men, as teachers…”
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:
“…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
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 means of defeating a triumphant nationalism. As
Charles Burke Elliot said in his book, The Philippines:
“…To 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.
Of 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…
Arrangements 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
accommodations 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
The importance of education as a colonial tool was never underestimated
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:
“..That 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…”
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.
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 programme 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 leveling
down of our last defenses. Dr. Chester Hunt characterizes this surrender
in these words:
“…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…”
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
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:
“..Clearly, 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…”
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
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.
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.
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 “concentration 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.
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
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.
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
hurts in two ways.
First, it strengthens the belief (and we see this in adults) that the
Philippines is essentially meant to be an agricultural country and we
cannot 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.
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 artesian
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.
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.
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
American education in effect transplanted American political
institutions and ideas into the Philippines. Senator Recto, in his last
major address at the University of the Philippines, explained the reason
for this. Speaking of political parties, Recto said:
“…It 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, and 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 ideals. 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.”
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 of
native democratic ideas and institutions were disregarded.
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 the freedom of
the press. Here, the consensus is that we cannot nationalize the press
because it would be depriving the foreigners of the exercise of the
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
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.
What then are the nationalist tasks for Philippine education?
Education must both 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 cannot 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.
But what happened in this country? Not only do we imitate Western
education, we have patterned our education after the most
technologically advanced western nations. The gap between the two
societies is very large. In fact, they are two entirely different
societies with different goals.
Adoption of western values
Economically, the US 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.
Culturally, the U.S. has a vigorously and distinctively American
culture. It is a nation whose cultural institutions have developed
freely, indigenously without control and direction from foreign sources,
whose ties to its cultural past are clear and proudly celebrated
because no foreign power has imposed upon its people a wholesale
inferiority complex, because no foreign culture has been superimposed
upon it destroying, distorting, its own past and alienating the people
from their own cultural heritage.
What are the characteristics of America 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.
By virtue of its 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 the master of its own house. American education, therefore,
understandably lays little emphasis on the kind of nationalism we
Filipinos need.
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 is on universal 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.
UnFilipino Filipinos
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 the 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?
No, there is apathy because there is no nationalism in our hearts
which will spur us to protect and help our countrymen first. Worse, some
Filipinos will 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 cannot
progress without the help of foreign capital and foreign entrepreneurs.
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.
The pathetic results of this failure of Philippine education is a
citizen amazingly naive 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 national wealth. Why are the great majority of our
people so complaisant about foreign 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 gifts that our conquerors have bestowed
upon us. A mask of benevolence was used to hide the cruelties and deceit
of early American occupation.
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 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 labored shrewdly and well.
The Language Problem
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.
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.
Rizal already foresaw the tragic effects of a colonial education when, speaking through Simon, he said:
“…You 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!..”
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 Filipino 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 inspite 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
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
colonialism. In a way, they were also captives 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.
One of the ostensible reason 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 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.
Now we have a small group of men who can articulate their thoughts in
English, a wider group who can read and speak in fairly comprehensible
English and a great mass that hardly expresses itself in any 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.
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 the best
inflections, demagogues who rant and rave, are the ones who 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 politician merely deals in
generalities.
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.
In 1924 the eminent scholar Najib Saleeby wrote on the language of
education in the Philippines. He deplored the 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:
“..The 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
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…”
This was said forty-two years ago when Tagalog movies, periodicals
and radio programmes had not yet attained popularity threat they enjoy
today all over the country. Saleeby further states:
“…Empirically 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 ground, but the American policy cannot be so
defended. It should receive popular free choice, or give good proof of
its practicability by showing actual and satisfactory results. The
people have as yet had 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…
..It 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.”
That 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
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, and 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 language should not
be taught. Foreign language should be taught and can be taught more
easily after one has mastered his own tongue.
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 to constantly avoid the subject of
language; inspite of the clear evidence of rampant ignorance among the
products of the present educational system.
This has resulted in the denial of education to a vast number of
children who after the primary grades no longer continue schooling.
Inspite 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 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 the use of
what is native. Thus the products of the Philippine educational system,
barring very few exceptions, are Filipinos who do not have a mastery of
English because it is foreign, and 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.
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 inflections, and 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 expressing ourselves in this language.
Language is a tool of the thinking process. Through language, thought
develops, and the development of thought leads to further development
of language. But when a language becomes a barrier of thought, the
thinking process is impeded or retarded and we have the resultant
cultural stagnation. Creative thinking, analytical 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.
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 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.
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.
Philippine history must be rewritten 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 the nationalist approach to education. Government leadership
and supervision is essential. Our educators need the support of
legislators in this regard. In this connection, the private sector has
also to be strictly supervised.
The Private Sector
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 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.
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 mainstream of the rebellion,
and these were passed on to the young. On the other hand, apathy to the
national problems was marked among the more affluent private school
students whose families had readily accepted American rule.
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 pretensions, send their children to private institutions. The
result has been a boon to private education, a boon that unfortunately
has seen the proliferation of diploma mills. There were two concomitant
tendencies that went with 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.
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 nationalist lines.
The autonomy of private institutions may be used to subvert nationalist
sentiments especially when ownership of schools and handling of the
social sciences are not yet Filipinized. Autonomy of private
institutions would only dilute nationalist sentiments either by foreign
subversions or by commercialization.
Other Educational media
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 puny efforts in this direction.
Needed: Filipinos
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 objects 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 care of themselves only. Our students hear of 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?
We have 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
regards for things Philippine, the selfish concern over the national
fate –these are not at all imbedded in the consciousness of students.
Children and adolescents go to school to get a certificate or diploma.
They try to learn facts but the patriotic attitude is not acquired
because of too much emphasis on forms.
What should be the basic objective of education in the Philippines?
Is it merely to produce men 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 programme does not
imbue prospective citizens with the proper attitudes that will ensure
the implementation of these goals and policies. Philippine educational
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.
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 out citizens to
form a distorted opinion of the foreign masters and also of themselves.
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.
