Philippine
Education and Democratic Governance
Regletto Aldrich D. Imbong
INTRODUCTION
In
this paper, I would contend for the crucial role that education plays in
creating and maintaining a good democratic government. In the social-curricular
relationship, the social consciousness of the people is produced or reproduced
by the curriculum and the established forms of knowledge preserved in the
latter. This expresses the direct relationship between the social mind and the
classrooms that create the individual minds; what is presumed here is that the
knowledge “transmitted” in the schools encourages a system that is oriented
towards social goals.[1]
.jpg)
But the problem, as I would argue,
is that in the age where neoliberalism has wreaked havoc in all institutions, –
not even sparing education – education’s social responsibility of producing
citizens have been distorted into maintaining the status quo i.e. capitalism’s
drive for profit through accumulation of cheap human labor.
As a consequence of neoliberal educational restructurings, which place more
emphasis on market values rather than on democratic values[2]
and problem-posing[3] pedagogy, the current
curricula have been structured to adapt an apolitical stance vis-à-vis the
different socio-historical and political phenomenon Filipinos experience. As an
effect, most of the teachers and students the current curricula create are
designed to become future apolitical and uncritical citizens, who merely are
reduced as driving forces of the market and industry.
The urgent task therefore, is to
implement genuine educational reforms that both dismiss the market-oriented
scheme of neoliberal globalization on education, and defend the language of
social critique both inside and outside the classrooms as a condition for a
democratic and just society. The real gauge for a strong and democratic
government resides neither only on the credentials of its political leaders nor
to subservience to foreign dictates, but most importantly on the active and
collective involvement of its citizens, empowered to change oppressive social
and political structures rather than adapt to them.[4]
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION AND
NEOLIBERALISM
.jpg)
First
and foremost, it is important to define what the term neoliberalism means. Contrary to common understanding,
it is not just an economic system. More than an economic system, it is also a
“moral and social system designed to advance 20th century global
capitalism.”[5] It
is hegemonic in character, and as a consequence, it becomes an ideology that
“recognizes no national borders, political boundaries, or limits.”[6]
It “is a distinctly US economic model… that devastates and blames the poor
while rewarding and celebrating the rich.”[7]
Lastly, “it promotes an
economic structure that allows the owners of capital and production to operate virtually
unobstructed around the world to take full advantage of poorly paid labor markets
and nonexistent environmental regulation. The system is openly unjust and shows
disdain for any pretense of social equality.[8]
Second, we need to establish the
fact that neoliberal globalization has indeed affected education – especially
Philippine education. In Education Reform
and Education Policy in Asia, Ka Ho Mok has stressed the fact that “no
country is immune from the impact of globalization,”[9]
and this includes Philippines. The economic, political and cultural aspects of
the country has been structured and framed according to how it could best respond
to a market-driven economy. Mok and many other scholars believe that “education
policy and development is not immune from globalization pressures.”[10]
This is actualized when educational systems change their “school governance
models and curriculum design to accommodate the changing need of the knowledge
economy.”[11] Thus, “the reconstruction of schooling is
part of the neoliberal stage of capitalism” in order to “prepare workers,
managers, and ancillary personnel for an exploitative system whose motor force
is the accumulation of capital.”[12]
In the present neoliberal condition, education is merely an “instrument that is
used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of
the present system and bring about conformity to it…”[13]
It has produced
blind slaves rather than critical citizens.
As early as
the 1970’s, Constantino had already exposed the colonial and market-oriented
nature of our education, which he technically termed as miseducation. He traced the historical
origin and purpose of education introduced by the Americans in the Philippines.
Describing the educational leaders of the country, Constantino cautions “that
the educational system and philosophy of which they are proud inheritors were
valid only in the framework of American colonialism. The American educational system
introduced by the Americans has to correspond and was designed to correspond
the economic and political reality of American conquest.”[14]
In subjugating the Philippines as a colony, the American imperialists did not
only utilize brute military force to sow fear among the people but also through
pedagogical means to harvest blind obedience from the citizenry. Indeed, the
best means of conquest is the moulding of people’s minds.[15]
And the Americans, contrary to the Spanish colonialists, were able to realize
this by implementing a public system of education in the Philippines,[16]
having a façade of free education geared for the patronization of free market
globalization.
Constantino’s sharp and critical
analysis of the Philippine educational system still holds true even today. The
market-oriented character of Philippine education, though influenced by foreign
powers, is legitimized by local legislations and orders. As explicitly
expressed by CHED (Commission on Higher Education) in its strategic plan for
2011-2016, one of its major targets, in line with their “Rationalization of
Higher Education Institutions and Programs,” is to develop and implement
curricula which are integrated to the 21st century skills and
competencies and responsive to the needs of the market, both local and
international.[17] CHED even
called for the active involvement of industry representatives in developing the
curricula. Directly quoting from the strategic plan, CHED explains that “in
order to produce highly competent and competitive graduates, HEI’s[18]
are encouraged to offer programs that are in demand and responsive to the needs
of industry, both domestic and international.” The thrust – just like in the
past – in Philippine education is the preparation of future workers equipped
with both the skills to adapt to the workplace and the docility vis-à-vis
oppressive working conditions.
.jpg)
What is implied in this system is the
preservation of the culture of indifference common to the new generation of
Filipinos. Filipino students, trained to merely respond to the needs of the
industry, are shut through the walls connecting the schools to the industry. The
current pedagogical practices in the Philippines disconnect the student from
his/her everyday life as he/she is merely prepared and designed for the
industry. In this case, “schooling thus becomes technocratic and rationalistic
to the extent that it is removed from the material and everyday world and the
experience of students.”[19] No
longer are they exposed to the society and made aware with the different
relationships and contradictions present in it. Social responsibility is
already understood as to how individuals could maintain and adapt with the
economic (capitalist) system rather than in the active engagement and
involvement in creating history. In this sense, they are dominated and
alienated from their right to participate in history.[20]
History is now exclusive for the powerful.
TOWARDS A FILIPINIZED CRITICAL
PEDAGOGY
Employing Marx’ argument, there is
the necessity and urgency to alter the kind of intervention done to our
education and to rescue it from the influence of the ruling class.[21]
With the market-oriented educational system practiced in the Philippines and
its possible consequences to society, there arises a need to embrace a pedagogy
that examines critical theories, and endeavors to link these to the people’s
experiences of living and struggling. Furthermore, this pedagogy must question oppressive
and violent systems – neoliberal globalization included – that dehumanizes
persons and denies social transformation and democracy. It must be a
Filipinized critical pedagogy.[22]
The concept of critical pedagogy is difficult to define in a brief
and compelling manner. It’s not all about learning pedagogical techniques and
methods. Rather it is “grounded on a social and educational vision of justice
and equality” and “constructed on the belief that education is inherently
political.”[23]
It does not view education as a neutral ground but concerns with “’the margins’ of society, the experiences
and needs of individuals faced with oppression and subjugation”.[24]
Most importantly, it focuses on “understanding the profound impact of
neo-colonial structures in shaping education and knowledge.”[25]
Contrary to how neoliberal globalization has
fashioned educational systems, education, as argued by Henry Giroux, is “a
moral and political practice.”[26]
As a moral practice, it is not limited to matters of “individual choice or
relativism but a social discourse that refuses to accept needless human
suffering and exploitation.”[27]
It teaches both the teacher and the student the evils brought about by neoliberal
or market-oriented policies that only preserve and even defend inhuman
conditions for the sake of the capital. As a political practice, it “prepares
students to engage in a common struggle for deepening the possibilities of
autonomy, critical thought, and a substantive democracy.”[28]
This aspect is absent in the present educational system for the latter simply
fashions individuals ready for the workplaces. However, I would also clarify
that critical pedagogy’s concern, as opposed to the current pedagogical
practice, is already expanded: it both prepares students to land decent jobs in
the future and empowers them to constantly adapt the language of social
critique, that, for example, if ever oppression is present in their individual
workplaces, they have the voice to question and the courage to struggle against
it.
But contextualization is necessary
in the application of critical pedagogy. There is a need to critically apply a
Western concept and practice to the concrete Philippine conditions. Michael
Viola attempts to contextualize the task of critical pedagogy, affirming that
Philippine history, as a treasury of struggle and experiences, has much to
teach to Filipino educators. The latter, according to Viola, has the
“responsibility to understand the world in which they are preparing future
generations to live and work.”[29] Viola
started with examining the current situation of education in the Philippines,
stressing the (centuries-old) facts about low wages of public school teachers
(prompting them to find extra jobs to augment their daily needs), unhealthy classroom proportion between teachers and students,
the lack of learning-conducive classrooms and comfort rooms and malnutrition
vis-à-vis the necessity for students to learn.[30]
Viola connects all these problems with the US (neoliberal) drive to expand its
hegemonic economic rule, forcing Philippines to adopt structural adjustment
programs aimed at exploitation of cheap human labor brought about by the
deskilling of poor Filipino students through the commercialization of
education. Viola, quoting David Harvey, maintains that “public utilities and
social services were turned into sinister opportunities for privatization and
profit.[31]
The Filipino educator therefore, as
the molder of future generations, must make its pedagogy relevant to the lives,
experiences and struggles of the Filipinos. To realize this, Viola quoted
Epifanio San Juan Jr. that the educator (but certainly not limited to him/her)
must “interrogate the totality of capitalism and the contradictions of
history.”[32] The educator does not
merely confront the educational problems presented earlier[33]
but must show these to his/her students in a manner which is politically
awakening, and encourages collective and organized action to uproot its cause,
i.e. (monopoly) capitalism.
This
is the essential element of critical pedagogy. The delimiting walls that
connect the classroom to the workplaces, set up under a market-oriented
education, are destroyed. New democratic visions and horizons are shown to
students (and the teachers as well), making them realize that the schools are
but microcosms of the bigger society.
DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
An empowered citizenry is the most
important element in good democratic governance. A citizenry that is not
silenced (through pedagogical manipulations) but endowed with a political
consciousness (molded through critical pedagogy) prepared to question and alter
inhuman conditions, and having the vision and hope to build a democratic
society. Without this, there is a great possibility that the bureaucracy would
abuse its power and even use this against the people. In this case, democracy
fails.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Unless these conditions – which
are basic and should have been prioritized by our government – are met, the
good and democratic government will remain to be an impossible dream. Lastly,
unless these conditions are granted, the government will never be from the
people, by the people and for the people.
REFERENCES
BOOKS:
Constantino,
Renato. A History of the Philippines:
From the Spanish Colonization to the Second World
War. London: Monthly Review Press, 1975.
Dale, John and Emery Hyslop-Margison.
Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation: The Philosophical
Influences on the Work of Paulo Freire. New York: Springer, 2010.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: The
Continuum International Publishing Group
Inc., 1970.
Giroux, Henry. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the
Politics of Education. New York: Routledge,
2005.
Kincheloe, Joe, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An
Introduction. Quebec: Springer,
2008.
Kincheloe, Joe and Shirley
Steinberg. “Politics, Intelligence and the Classroom: Postformal Teaching.” Joe Kincheloe et.al. ed. Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting
Psychological Assumptions About
Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Marx, Karl. “The Communist
Manifesto.” Karl Marx: Selected Writings.
Ed. David McLellan. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000. 259.
Mclaren,
Peter. Critical Pedagoy and Predatory
Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era.
New York: Routledge, 1995.
Mok, Ka Ho. Education Reform and Education Policy in East Asia. New York:
Routledge, 2006.
Zizek,
Slavoj. “From Democracy to Divine Violence,” Democracy in What State?. Ed. Amy Allen.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. 101.
JOURNAL
Viola,
Michael. “The Filipinization of Critical Pedagogy: Widening the Scope of
Critical Educational Theory.”Journall for Critical Education Policy
Studies 7. 1 (June 2009): 18.
ELECTRONIC SOURCES:
Assessor, An. “Testing,
Privatization and the Future of Public Schooling.” Monthly Review 63.3 (July- August 2011), (no page). 8 February 2012. <http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/testing-privatization-and-the-future-of- public-schooling>.
Constantino, Renato. “The Miseducation of the Filipino.” Article
Online. Available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of- the- Filipino.4
September 2011
Einstein,
Albert. “Why Socialism.” Monthly Review
61.1 (May 2009), (no page). 4 February 2012.
< http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism>.
[1] Albert Einstein, “Why
Socialism,” Monthly Review, Volume
61, Issue 1, May 2009, 4 February 2012, 3-4.
[2] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the
Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 209.
[3] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: The
Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970), 26.
[4] Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the
Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 66-67.
[5]
John Dale and Emery Hyslop-Margison, Paulo
Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation: The Philosophical Influences
on the Work of Paulo Freire, (New York: Springer, 2010), 6.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]Ibid.
[9] Ka Ho Mok, Education Reform and Education Policy in East Asia (New York:
Routledge, 2006), 13.
[10] Ibid. Mok, quoting from Mok and
Welch narrates that “after completing a series of comparative studies, they
find that educational developments in the region, including Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Singapore, South Korea, mainland China, Japan, the Philippines, Cambodia, New
Zealand, and Australia, have been affected by the trends of marketization and
corporatization.” Ibid., 4.
[11] Ibid., 5.
[12] An Assessor, “Testing,
Privatization and the Future of Public Schooling,” Monthly Review, July-August 2011, 4 February 2012, http://monthlyreview.org/2011/07/01/testing-privatization-and-the-future-of-public-schooling>.
[13] As argued by Richard Shaull in
his foreword to Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of
the Oppressed (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.,
1970), 34.
[14] See
Renato Constantino, The Miseducation of
the Filipino, 4 Sept.
2011<http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of-the-Filipino>.
[15] See
Renato Constantino, The Miseducation of
the Filipino, 4 Sept.
2011<http://www.scribd.com/doc/32721186/Renato-Constantino-The-Miseducation-of-the-Filipino>.
Also see Renato Constantino, A History of
the Philippines: From the Spanish Colonization to the Second World War
(London: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 309.
[16] Renato Constantino, A History of the Philippines: From the
Spanish Colonization to the Second World War (London: Monthly Review Press,
1975), 308. Religious mystification was not employed by the Americans. The
mystification process undergone by the Filipinos were through the acceptance
and eventual education of an alien and colonial curriculum.
[17]
With the Philippine government unable to establish nationalized industries and rather
strongly relies on foreign investments, the concept of “local” markets is
minimal if not impossible. So, to the question on who benefits this type of
education, I would argue that Philippines is the disadvantageous party.
[18]
Higher Education Institutions.
[19]
Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg, “Politics, Intelligence and the Classroom:
Postformal Teaching,” Joe Kincheloe et.al. ed., Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions About
Teaching and Learning (New York: Routledge, 1999), 242.
[20]
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: The
Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 1970), 130.
[21]
Karl Marx, Karl Marx: Selected Writings,
ed., David McLellan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 259
[22]
Critical
pedagogy is not a new term of which the researcher invented. Its theoretical
roots could go as far back to Marx, in the German
Ideology, emphasizing that “life is not determined by consciousness, but
consciousness by life.” But the movement is more popularized first in Latin
America, especially by Paulo Freire, and later to some Western scholars and
pedagogues. But critical pedagogy per se is a Western product. It sprung from a
condition alien to the Philippine setting; the task therefore is to be able to
reformulate such a concept suitable for the analysis, critique and reform of
Philippine education.
[23]
Joe Kincheloe, Knowledge and Critical
Pedagogy: An Introduction (Quebec: Springer, 2008), 10.
[24]
Ibid.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural
Workers and the Politics of Education (Routlegdge Taylor and Francis Group,
2005), 209. First and foremost, this stand is based on the belief that education
is never neutral; it is not an apolitical but a political issue. See Peter
Mclaren, Critical Pedagoy and Predatory
Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era (New York: Routledge,
1995), 16.
[27]
Henry Giroux, Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the
Politics of Education (New York: Routledge, 2005), 67.
[28]
Ibid., 209
[29]
Michael Viola, “The Filipinization of Critical Pedagogy: Widening the Scope of
Critical Educational Theory,”Journall for
Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.7 no.1, 18.
[30]
Ibid., 16-17.
[31]
Ibid., 17.
[32]
Ibid., 13.
[33]
Doing so would reduce the issue to mere reformism, a move which does not
radically answer the basic contradiction/s underlying these problems. For
example, if teachers merely initiate feeding programs for the malnourished, the
fact that a million more students are still malnourished still lingers. Or if
charity institutions construct classrooms, the problem of the yearly budget
cuts on education is left untouched, if not unsolved.
[34]
I would compare this liberal
democracy to how Zizek described “(market) freedom is unfreedom for those
selling their working force…” See Slavoj Zizek, “From Democracy to
Divine Violence,” Democracy in What
State?, ed. Amy Allen (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 101.
NOSEBLEED Arrrghhhh... >.<
TumugonBurahin