Outline

1. History of the System of Education in the Philippines

1.1 Pre-Colonial Era
1.2 Under Spanish Colonization
1.3 Under American Colonization
2. Critical Theories on Education
2.1 Failure of Liberal Ideologies
2.2 Education and the Reproduction of Economic Relationships
2.2.1 Correspondence Theory
2.3 Education and the Reproduction of State Power
2.4 Education and Cultural Reproduction
2.5 Theories of Resistance
2.6 What Can People Do?
2.6.1 Rachel Sharp
2.6.2 Harris
2.6.3 Willis
2.7 The Uses of the University
3. Overview of the System of Education in TODAY society
3.1 2002 / Millenium Curriculum
3.2 RGEP (in the University of the Philippines)
4. Work Cited
1. History of the System of Education in the Philippines

To have an understanding of the education in the Philippines with regard to the

vast impact of globalization upon it, let us take a look first at the historical context of the
system of education in the country.

1.1 System of Education during Pre-Colonial Era

The system of education in the Philippines during the pre-colonial times was highly
related to and influenced by the kind of economic situation. The type of society before
Spanish colonization was Primitive Communal and shifting to Asiatic feudalism. Because
the subsistent mode of production they had, the mode at which education is being
proliferated and spread out was also plain and simple. Alibata, the native alphabet, was
used as a medium of instruction.

During the pre-colonial era, the educators were the Babaylan and the Katalonan.
They were both looked upon by the society because they possess wisdom and
knowledge on spirituality and system of governing their own society. Hence, the type of
education that was taught to the people was based on beliefs and tradition. The limited
education on scientific learning was caused by the limitation in economic production.

In the Muslim communities in Mindanao, education was proliferated through Islam

religion. Education was based on religious instruction of Islam. The teachers were the
Imam or Ulema (Muslim priests). The children were taught how to read, write, and
comprehend Arabic by using the Koran as their textbooks.

The type of education before was not institutionalized. There was no formal and
separate institution for education. Also, there was still no specialization in education.

1.2 System of Education under Spanish Colonization

The type of education brought by the Spaniards was rooted on the ideology of
Catholicism. The Religious Orders were the ones who established schools, colleges, and
seminaries in the Philippines. The priests acted as educators during that time. Education
became the powerful tool in the propagation of Catholicism. Most of the established
schools adhere to the teachings of Catholic religion.

Ownership of vast area of land gave the priests the power to dominate and control the
education system. And, Feudal mode of production was the economic basis of education
because the feudal lords or landlords controlled many schools and institutions. Education,
serving the Spaniards religious interest, led to the conversion of many Filipinos.

Although, there was already a systematic and institutionalized kind of education, there
was still no equal opportunity in attaining education. Filipinos were oriented to religious
and patriarchal system of education. People were also taught that education is one way
to achieve social mobility. But education only manifested social inequality and women
subordination. Mostly, men were given greater opportunity than women. The Mestizos
and wealthy people were the only privileged ones to enter prestigious schools. On the
other hand, women were taught only in vocational schools. But, most women were denied
of their rights to education in the patriarchal belief that women should only stay at home.

1.3 System of Education under American Colonization

The establishment of the system of education of the United States of America

(USA) in the Philippines was under the [pretext] context of a wide collective struggle to
topple down the marks of colonialism left by the previous colonizer.

Education was then used by the US to pacify the Filipinos for later when the
Philippines would once again be colonized, this time, by the believed protector and ally,
the United States itself. This system aimed to placate, if not totally eradicate, the
Philippine revolution and at the same time, [mis]educate the Filipinos to go against any
form of revolt.
Contrary to popular belief, the Thomasites (US civilian and professional citizens)
who came aboard marine vessel USS Thomas were not the very first teachers and
educators but the US soldiers who were left in the Philippine Islands after the Second
World War. The high-ranking military officials then became the first school supervisors
and principals.
 The institution of the Philippine Normal School in 1901 and the University of the
Philippines in 1908 was one scheme the Americans utilized to effortlessly mold and
construct a different Filipino consciousness and to ultimately bring about their desired
change. These then became the primary institutional expressions of higher education in
the Philippines.
The founding of the academia was said to have paved way for the training of the
future local officials to become puppets of the imperial powers, more so, the building of a
petit-bourgeoisie form of society with the desire to uplift their societal status through
industries, trade and the bureaucracy.
In the separation of the State and the Church, some of the educational institutions
put up by the Spanish were given autonomy in teaching approach. The Ateneo de Manila
University and the De La Salle University, for instance, remained under the devout
Catholic supervision.
Meanwhile, the American Protestants established and administered new schools
and colleges like The Trinity College, Silliman University, and the Brent School.
For the Americans, having a firm system of education is very significant. It is
essential to intensify and preserve their power and authority over the people. Despite the
widespread campaign and struggle for them to hand over the vital bureaucratic position
based on the Filipinization Act during the first decade of the 20 th Century, the Bureau of
Public Instructions remained under the administration and regulation of the Americans. It
was only until 1935, when the Philippines adopted a commonwealth form of government
that it was passed on.
Nothing has much changed during the Japanese colonization. During this era,
American system of education still prevailed, owing perhaps to the short time of their stay
here.

2. Critical Theories on Education

2.1 Failure of Liberal Ideologies

 There are evident inequalities in education. (Injustices and Malformations of
Educational Practice) Working class pupils or certain minority groups perform less well
educationally than middle-class pupils or mainstream groups. The projection of society is
that there is a significantly higher educational attainment for those who have a higher
social status. There are inequalities in wealth, income, power, prestige and opportunity in
society at large.

Liberal Ideology refers to that network of beliefs which holds that education is not
only a good thing in itself, but that it will work positively for the eradication of inequalities
in society. The root causes include matters of social structure and processes rather than
individual psychology or genetic inheritance. There are specific theories of reproduction
which show how social inequality is reproduced from generation to generation and how
education contributes to that process.

2.2 Education and the Reproduction of Economic Relationships

2.2.1 Correspondence Theory (Bowles and Gintis)

The educational system helps integrate youth into the economic system, through a
structural correspondence between its social relations and those of production. The
economic system is unequal and unfair (power, wealth, opportunity etc.). Schools mirror
that system, are subordinate to it, determined by it, and therefore function to reproduce it.
Bowles and Gintis argue that the structure of social relations of school not only prepares
and accustoms pupils for the discipline of work, but produces the psychological
characteristics demanded by either shop floor or managerial jobs. Schooling develops the
types of personal demeanor, modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social class
identifications, which are the crucial ingredients of job adequacy. Their claim is two-fold,
schooling reflects work, particularly factory work. This mirroring or correspondence
supplies the necessary labor force, equipped with suitable personalities and attitudes to
the economy. The social relations of school mirror the hierarchical division of labor at
work. Pupils, like workers, are not in control of their education (work). Schools monopolize
learning through certificates. Pupils are motivated by extrinsic rewards of marks and
grades, not satisfaction with the task itself. Pupils also learn that competition is the name
of the game. Like factory processes, the learning process is technically and socially
fragmented and that little regard is given to the pupils’ interests. Punctuality and
attendance are stressed, as is rule conformity and good behavior. Schooling, through its
hidden curriculum, serves capitalist society by producing workers who are subordinate,
docile, punctual and conforming. This “production process” of the school has deprived
them of control over their lives, just as the production process of the factory.

2.3 Education and the Reproduction of State Power

Schools are provided by the state and no state intends to establish schools which
subvert its purposes, values, ideals. Schools are maintained and funded in the belief that
they will support and maintain the state aims and beliefs. This generalization is true,
irrespective of economic organization, capitalist or socialist. The school provides
appropriately socialized workers into the economic and political structure. It is a vital
instrument of control and reproduction (Althusser, Ideological State Apparatus).

Instrumental rationality (Frankfurt School) is the state’s concern for efficiency is

overemphasized (p.51), the obsession with management, the low status of arts and
humanities, the denigration of sociology, the increasing privatization of public services.

Education in a capitalist liberal democracy: “promotes a distorted and illusory view

of reality in the name of enquiry intro truth… a structured misrepresentation of reality, a
misinterpretation that educands become bearers of” (Kevin Harris). Hegemony on the
other hand is the condition where subordinates believe something to be common sense,
when in fact; common sense is against their own best interests. The schools aid the state
by providing false beliefs; namely, social mobility, democracy and happiness (p.53).

2.4 Education and Cultural Reproduction

Education ensures the reproduction of cultural, hence economic, inequality. Pierre

Bourdieu states that schools transmit certain forms of culture, and thus reproduce not
only that culture, but also its social class structure.
 Symbolic violence is the subtle process whereby subordinate classes come to take
as common sense ideas and practices that are actually against their own best interests. It
refers to the malformations school culture effects upon individuals’ perceptions and
beliefs i.e. What is taught in school is taken as truth even if it is against what the pupil
aspires.

Cultural capital is what is deemed quantifiable by language, meanings, thoughts,

behavioral styles, values, dispositions of a person. Schools favor the dominant cultural
capital. That culture then is confirmed, legitimated, and reproduced. Pupils who lack this
culture feel that their own culture is devalued or denied. (Ex. Fashion) (p.56). Culture
works in schools to reproduce dominant forms of power relationships and is what is called
cultural reproduction.

Habitus is the matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions. It is a set of

internalized competencies and structured needs, an internalized style of knowing and
relating to the world that is grounded in the body itself. Culture internalized by a person as
dispositions and values which guide behavior. It enables the individual to make sense of
his world and it provides the spur to action in that world. The habitus works in dialectic
with structure, to reproduce both domination and learning. Working class children are
predisposed by their socialization to enter manual occupations (p.57).

2.5 Theories of Resistance

Reproduction is never completely or neatly accomplished but is opposed by certain

groups. These groups draw upon their own culture as a resource to sustain their
opposition. The act of opposition itself often contributes to the reproduction of inequality.
Within the oppositional groups’ values can be detected the seeds of alternative education.

2.6 What People Can Do

2.6.1 Rachel Sharp: Counter-Hegemony. (p.62)

o Decision making in school should be shared.

o Curriculum must have alternatives.
o Don’t expect too much.

2.6.2 Harris

o Action Possibilities
o Exercise consciousness-raising
o Show how consciousness is formed.
o Rooting the curriculum from the actual situation of the people.
o Engaging pupils and teachers in a dialogic relationship.

2.6.3 Willis

• Teachers should not feel insulted by the counter-culture.

• They should recognize and understand potential meanings behind overtly unacceptable
behavior.
• Try to extend such understandings to wider society.

2.7 The Uses of the University

Problems haunt the current academe. Corporate reorganization of academic

institutions leads to specialization and intellectual piracy. Companies give scholarships as
unwritten “contracts”. There is also a dwindling down of audiences on the scholarly and
literary discourses which aim to open the eyes of many to reality. There are of course
solutions to these problems. We in the academe should always bear in mind reality as we
see it, not as it is dictated upon by powerful institutions. Then report on what we know and
counter the information from the other dubious sources: media, corporations and state.
Instructors should teach what they are not supposed to teach, so that the bureaucratic
discourse would be disrupted. Remain skeptical about other so-called “academic works”
which only cater to the exclusivity of the global economy.

3. Overview of the System of Education in TODAY society

 When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered her State Of The Nation
Address last July, a huge emphasis was given to the importance and the development of
the information and communications technology (ICT) skills of the youth. This, together
with proficiency in English will give them “a competitive edge in call-centers and other
business process outsourcing.” To be a key player in today’s global economy, the
President reiterates the need for strengthening this sector, thus the promise to
continuously increase the budget for science and technology, and education.

3.1 2002 / Millennium Curriculum

Changes to the country’s primary and secondary education curricula have already
been made with the formation of the 2002 Curriculum, also known as the Millennium
Curriculum by the Department of Education.

In a nutshell, the proposed Millennium Curriculum seeks to integrate several

learning areas into one subject called “Pag-SIKAP”. Pag stands for Araling
Pagpapahalaga or Homeroom; S for Sining which includes Arts and Music; I for
Information and Communications Technology; K for Kultura, Kalusugan at Kabuhayan;
and the AP for both Araling Panlipunan at Araling Pangkatawan. This means that under
the proposal, elementary and high school students will have an integrated curriculum
composed of only five “core learning areas”, namely English, Mathematics, Science,
Filipino and Pag-SIKAP.

The merging alone of History and Social Studies with Music, Arts and PE makes it
a controversial proposal. Class hours for English, Math, Science and Filipino will be
increased while class hours for History and Social Studies will be cut by almost half every
week. Furthermore, with this little time allotted, all the other areas in Pag-SIKAP must be
squeezed in. Clearly, the Millennium Curriculum reduces the role of History and Social
Studies in the education and identity of the Filipino youth, as well as the formation of
nationalism.

Even more controversial is the motivation behind this proposed curriculum. The
Department of Education has cited the strengthening of the educational standards as one
of its objectives. DepEd also stated that the Millennium Curriculum is suited and ideal for
the “market conditions”. What market conditions?

A report of the Asian Development Bank/ World Bank included as one of its
recommendations that “graduates of the educational system have to possess skills that
will contribute to Philippine competitiveness”. Philippine competitive advantage they say
lies in the low-end hi-tech areas, requiring at least a secondary school education of
reasonable quality. It’s as if the ADB/WB has established the role that the Philippines
must play in the global economy, and the government, through the Department of
Education is taking action to please them and meet their demands. How? With the focus
on strengthening the areas of English and communications, as well as science and
technology among elementary and (especially) high school students. There is not much
need to improve the other areas then as all the government needs to ensure is a
“secondary school education of reasonable quality.” Besides, these efforts are meant to
produce students who can cater to the needs of multinational companies. And would
these companies really care for or need people who know their history and the context of
their social realities? More so, employees who have imbibed love for their own
country? These aspects have been deemed unnecessary and overlooked in applying for
jobs, and the Millennium Curriculum is proof that the government has taken notice. After
all, our educational system has become directed towards producing graduates who can
land jobs supplying the needs of multinational corporations, instead of focusing on the
education and knowledge itself.

This focus on producing graduates who can penetrate the global economy is carried
up until the tertiary level. Competition of course is always tough, so it seems as if
measures have been taken to go the “easy way in”. Where the available demand is, that’s
where they go, thus the emergence of technical and vocational schools.

3.2 RGEP (in the University of the Philippines)

Even in the context of the University of the Philippines, critics have noted that the
enforcement of the Revised General Education Program (RGEP) is an actualization of the
goals and provisions of globalization and even neo-liberalism.
 With the RGEP, students of the UP Diliman (also implemented in the Los Banos
and Baguio campuses) are given freedom to choose from a menu of courses the General
Education subjects they’d like to take. Generally, 45 units of GE subjects are required, 6
of which in the domain of Philippine Studies. Preceding to the RGEP was GE Program,
which was more structured, requiring students to take certain prescribed GE subjects.

Proponents of the RGEP insist "The entire R.G.E.P.'s freedom of choice concept
aims at infusing a passion for learning among students as they are expected to respond
more eagerly to courses they choose instead of courses they have no interest and
required to take." The required 6 units of Philippine Studies are imposed to safeguard the
university’s commitment to nationalism.

The RGEP indeed gives students the freedom to choose whichever GE subjects
they want to take, but contrary to its goals, the RGEP can be viewed as un-holistic, and
un-nationalistic. If students can just ignore the courses they have no interest in, say for
example English, they can just avoid all English GE subjects. This means that one can
graduate without having to go through any English or Math or History subject. There is
academic freedom, yes, but the fulfillment of the goal for a holistic education is sacrificed.
The inclusion of the required 6 units of Philippine Studies appears to be a poor
compromise. Some sort of consuelo de bobo.

This academic freedom can also be dangerous as students will most likely choose
subjects which are popular and whose requirements are easy to fulfill or in other words,
uno-able. There are also cases of students who merely want to finish their degree, and
the prospect of having to take GE classes becomes a hassle. And again, instead of
choosing subjects which can be helpful and vital to an individual, no matter what career
path chosen, one can always take the easy route, and get the easy subjects without really
studying. The implementation of the RGEP has also turned enrolment and the
development of classes into a competition. The principle of supply and demand becomes
evident. Logically, uno-able classes get the highest demand, therefore making the
survival of a class (whether new classes should be opened, and whether new teachers
should be taken) dependent on its popularity, and not on its relevance. Instructors might
then device ways to make their subjects more appealing, which can only either improve
the subject or sacrifice the syllabus.

Back to the 2006 SONA, there is nothing wrong with strengthening the country’s ICT
sector. However, one could clearly see that it is inconsistent with the governments failed
efforts to instill nationalism. Although many Filipinos are given job opportunities in call-
centers and the like, Looking at it simply, one could say that it is good for the country –
with some unemployed Filipinos finally landing jobs, and finally, becoming players and
participant in the global economy or market. The government takes pride in these
developments. But then, aren’t these international companies Filipinos work for? What's
more is that they work around conditions of other countries, like the time and language
demands.

It really isn’t that hard to see that our educational system merely produces short-term
plans to cater to multinational companies and the global market. With the 2002
Curriculum and the RGEP, the government, though not explicit in doing so, is succumbing
the pressure it is under to design a Philippine educational system that adheres to the
framework of globalization.

4. On Commercialization of Education

As a result of the continuing budget cut from the government and the need for the
State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) to be self – sustaining in order to support and
maintain themselves more and more schools are forced to make partnerships with local
businesses and corporations. Yes, these partnerships may prove to be beneficial in a
sense that they provide the schools with the financial and technical support that the
students will need in order to improve the students' learning but are we really helping out
our students? Is commercialization of education really as good as it seems?
In Philippine History, the educational system has always been under the influence
of the ruling class. The development of the educational system and the domination of the
local and foreign ruling class have always been and may even be forever intertwined. As
children, we were taught by our parents, especially children from middle class families,
that education is the only gift that they can give us and it is up to us to use education to
climb the social ladder. Our hopes and dreams are then molded by these teachings and
thus, try to shape our dreams and careers according to which careers will bring us
economic benefits and of course, money. Thinking of my childhood, and how I was
affected by my parents words, I just can't help thinking that my parents' words somehow
introduced me to commercialized education. Though only a few may admit it, some of us
chose our courses not because they really wanted it but because they think their courses
will most likely give them an edge over the others in rising in the social ladder. The same
thing is happening with our educational system, partnerships with corporations are like
giving the corporations the right to manipulate our education. Consider the case in our
own university, the University of the Philippines is known to have tied up with different
corporations in order to support technological advancement and quality education. Yes, it
is true that the students are able to benefit with this tie – ups in a way that the students
are given quality training, better laboratory equipments, more accommodating classrooms
etc. However, it is rather obvious that the corporations are also using these tie -ups for
their own good. What departments are given the greatest privilege? What college has the
most number of high tech buildings? How do the buildings of other colleges compare with
those of colleges related to science and technology? How is the budget for each college
determined? Through commercialization, the focus of education is geared towards the
satisfaction of the corporations. Schools are being privatized through contracts with
businesses and the curricula are affected by these contracts. Even the students' theses
are driven towards the good of these businesses. Yes, students are provided with nice
equipments but in turn, they must sacrifice their work to be used by companies without
giving them proper credit. Just imagine how much cheaper it is to use a student's work
than hiring a professional and funding his research. This is how it goes not only the
Phillippines but also in other parts of the world .
Education is one of the essentials in social formation. It is not merely the
accumulation of information but the shaping of man to be useful in his society. It should
also be an “essential component in the preparation for citizenship” . However, through
commercialization, we are shaped to be businessmen and neglect our citizenship. We
tend to focus on sciences and neglect our social responsibilities. Commercialization of
education is just a new face of tyranny. It introduced new class rulers under the names of
corporations who are given the power to manipulate our educational system. It is just
another violation of the concept of education as being liberating.

WORK CITED:

1. Historical background: System of Education during Pre-Colonial Era, System of

Education under Spanish Colonization, System of Education under American
Colonization:

Paaralang Teresa Magbanua para sa mga Guro Kurso sa "Ang Sistema ng Edukasyon ,
Ang Guro at an Bayan"

Constantino,Renato . “The Miseducation of the Filipino”.

2. Critical Theories

3. Societal issues: 2002 / Millenium Curriculum, RGEP

“2002 Curriculum: Edukasyon sa Ilalim ng Imperyalistang Globalisasyon”, Dec 2001,

Alliance of Concerned Teachers-Philippines, Quezon City

http://www.upd.edu.ph/~ovcaa/rgep

Commercialization:

Antonio Tujan, Jr. “Transformative Education”. Education for Development.IBON

Partnership in Education for Development. Sta Mesa, Manila: September1999.p.6

Ang Sistema ng Edukasyon sa Pilipinas: Noon at Ngayon. Paaralang Teresa

Magbanua.Constantino,Renato . “The Miseducation of the Filipino”.

Antonio Tujan, Jr. “Transformative Education”. Education for Development.IBON

Partnership in Education for Development. Sta Mesa, Manila: September1999.p.6