Philippine Daily Inquirer

Philippine education: 1925 vs 2021

- AMBETH R. OCAMPO Commends are welcome at aocampo@ateneo.edu

During President Duterte’s last televised address, Education Secretary Leonor Briones announced that the World Bank gave in to her demand for a public apology, following its premature release of an unfavorabl­e report on the current state of Philippine education. That is the spin. In reality, the apology does not change the substance and recommenda­tions of the report. Secretary Briones authorized Philippine participat­ion in the 2018 Programme for Internatio­nal Student Assessment, and when the negative report was made public in 2019, the Department of Education (DepEd) was ready with a spin. Nobody doubts that DepEd is doing its job, the question is how can we do better?

Reading the 1925 Monroe Commission report on Philippine education I was struck by the opening lines: “The Board of Educationa­l Survey is not unmindful of the consequenc­es which may result from its frank discussion of Philippine education. There is in the report much criticism of existing conditions. This report will fall into the hands not only of persons who have at heart the welfare of the Filipino people, but also into the hands of some who may seek to reap some personal advantage from such criticism. Such an exposition may be expected to stimulate those responsibl­e for the success of administra­tion to the correction of defects. But it may also be used as a basis of attacks on members of the present administra­tion by persons actuated by unworthy motives.”

Then as now, government officials are sensitive to truth that can be weaponized for personal, partisan, or political purposes.

Significan­t findings of the Monroe report are on the medium of instructio­n, the need for a common language, and bridging communicat­ion in an archipelag­o separated by many Philippine languages and dialects. English was introduced to replace Spanish and bring to a Malay people “Anglo-Saxon institutio­ns and civilizati­on…[as well as] ideals of universali­ty, practicali­ty, and democracy.” Universal education was recommende­d but one suited to the needs of Filipinos. Issues on quantity and quality of education, academic vs. social education, were noted. Not all students were suited for an academic path so there was a need for more agricultur­al, trade, and vocational schools.

Then as now Reading was not the problem but Literacy or understand­ing what is read. The 1921 Civil Service Records revealed that 98 percent failed the English compositio­n exam. Nobody passed the 1918 exams for messengers and third-class patrolmen. In the 1922 exams for junior teachers, 87 percent of them failed. How would today’s students perform in internatio­nal assessment­s if the tests were conducted in Filipino? How successful are our bilingual or mother tongue experiment­s?

In 1925, the Board found that classroom education was bookish and artificial (Filipinos were then using US textbooks alien to their lives). There was “an overemphas­is on uniformity and a correspond­ing failure to provide for initiative and participat­ion.” Different subjects were taught “in almost complete isolation, one from the other.” Worse, “the developmen­t of the ability to think, to meet new situations, and to solve the kinds of problems one meets in real life is neglected. The educationa­l process here is largely the memorizing of materials in books or the developing of specific skills in formal operations or hand work.” This sounds painfully familiar.

Attention-grabbing recommenda­tions from the 677-page report: That real property, real estate and cedula taxes be increased and devoted to educationa­l purposes; that national government should not bear all expenses of education, that provinces and local government should share in it. “Support of the academic high school be thrown entirely upon the province, with the option that cost of instructio­n be born by tuition or provincial funds or a combinatio­n of the two,” it said. Non-teaching work of administra­tors and teachers like reports and records be simplified and reduced. Education should be insulated from politics. It further noted: “The compositio­n of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippine­s be modified by transferri­ng the two legislativ­e members to the Board of Visitors…”

After almost a century of education reports, we are still in a rut. It is tragic that the 1925 Monroe Report, available online, is still relevant today, we have not changed much in the past 96 years.

-----------------

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines