The principal aim of colonial Spain in the Philippines during their regime was to make the native Filipinos obedient and God-fearing Catholics.
During the American occupation, the educational approach of colonial authorities was dictated by what they considered to be their principal goal: to educate and to train Filipinos in the science of self-government.
In fact, Americans sent Filipino scholars called pensionados to U.S. colleges and universities to become leaders of the emerging Filipino Republic.
To counteract the American influence, President Quezon, who preferred a “government run like hell by Filipinos to a government run like heaven by Americans” promoted the Filipinization of education via the revival of native cultures and Filipino values in education.
Under the Educational Act of 1940, the minimum age of 7 years old was set for admission to Grade I. The school calendar was also changed from June to March to July to April.
As part of the Filipinization agenda in 1948, Jose V. Aguilar, superintendent of the Iloilo School Division, initiated a six-year experiment with vernacular instruction in his school division.
But as late as 1963, the Dean of the College of Education of Xavier University in Mindanao observed that the vernacular instruction was curtailing full instructional benefit and was producing dangerous trends towards regional and cultural imbalance.
Unfortunately, the 1960s saw the continuing trend towards the Filipinization of education headed by Education Sec. Alejandro Roces.
This time, the diverse vernacular is simply replaced by the mono “official language” based on the Tagalog language declared by President Quezon as the “Pambansang Wika” on Dec. 30, 1937 via Executive Order No. 134.
For me, these two educational proclivities did not truly understand the character of our multilingual society.
If overestimated in importance, the former can be anarchical while the latter can be imperial.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Interestingly like a two-headed monster, this cultural issue still besets us today. Perhaps, a dose of pragmatism is a remedy to what ails us educationally or culturally?
Under the Marcos dictatorship, the 1970s higher education policies of the so-called New Society shifted emphasis towards the accomplishment of Filipino labor export policy and advancement through the understanding of courses such as labor code, taxation, land reform, and economic production.
As a result, we are now scattered all over the world.
Currently, personal remittances from OFWs comprise about 10 percent of our GDP. In 2019, OFW remittances reached a record high of $33.5 billion, 3.9 percent higher than the $32.2 billion recorded in 2018.
Decades later and after a series of democratically elected governments, our labor export program is still very much in place.
Finally, the Kindergarten Act of 2012 and the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2014 extended the required number of years in formal education adopting the K-12 model that’s relatively standard around the world.
Fast forward to 2020.
Still, in light of the new educational thrusts in this digital age and globalization, nothing much has changed in the theoretical and curricular underpinnings of higher education in our country.
And now the pandemic crisis has exposed us that we’re not only far behind, but also had revealed to us that all along, we’ve been swindled by the quality of our higher education like The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Sad.
Prof. Efren Padilla
Dr. Padilla has retired from California State University-East Bay, and now keeps himself busy as an avid organic vegetable gardener in Dumaguete.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});