Bulatlat.com

Modern Thomasites Charting RP's Future Again

The Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND) and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) held a whole-day conference last Nov. 28 to commemorate the centennial of the Act 74. What is Act 74 all about and what is the state of education? Bulatlat.com summarizes the basic points raised in that conference.

BY BULATLAT.COM

There has been no qualitative change in the country’s educational system 100 years after the Americans institutionalized the public school system.

This is the consensus reached by some 500 students and teachers during the one-day conference entitled “Sentenaryo ng Misedukasyon: Isang Daang Taon ng Act 74 ng Imperyalistang Amerikano” held last Nov. 28 at the CSSP Multimedia Room, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, Quezon City. Speakers took turns in denouncing the colonial orientation of basic and tertiary education.

The Taft Commission enacted into law Republic Act No. 74 on Jan. 21, 1901. In a paper she read at the conference, UP History Prof. Nancy Gabriel said that Act 74 established the Department of Public Instruction in the country. This also allowed for the “importation” of 1,000 American teachers who became popularly known as the Thomasites.

Gabriel said that at that time, the Thomasites taught English to Filipino students and trained Filipino teachers. They also had night sessions with adults who wanted to learn English.

Aside from English, the Thomasites also focused on value formation. They also immersed themselves in the communities, serving as personal counselors of residents and consultants of local government units.

Corps of instructors

Gabriel cited a study by historian William B. Freer who explains that the Thomasites sought to create “an effective corps of instructors imbued with American ideals, trained in American methods of teaching, and using the English language as the vehicle of instruction.”

For his part, Dr. Francis Gealogo of the Ateneo’s History Department stressed that through the years, the country’s educational system remains neocolonial. It has failed to help change the oppressive and exploitative social structure and has instead helped institutionalize inequality.

Gealogo explained that foreign domination did not end in 1946 when the country was supposedly granted independence by the Americans. He said that the manifestations of domination may be gleaned from the past and present programs and policies.

Focusing on today’s education issues, Profs. Carol Almeda (Social Studies, UP Manila) and Tonchi Tinio (Filipino, UP Diliman) branded the proposed 2002 Curriculum, also known as the Millennium Curriculum, as the government’s way to strengthen the colonial character of the country’s educational system.

In a nutshell, the proposed Millennium Curriculum seeks to integrate five “core learning areas” into one subject called “Makabayan.” This subject is composed of Homeroom; Arts and Music; Information and Communication Technology (ICT); Culture, Health and Livelihood); and Social Studies and Physical Education.

Under the proposal, elementary and high school students will have an integrated curriculum consisting of only five subjects, namely English, Filipino, Mathematics, Natural Science and Makabayan.

Class hours

Class hours devoted to subjects like Social Studies that will be integrated to Makabayan will be cut by almost half every week. At the same time, class hours for Math, Science, Filipino and English will be increased by one-and-a-half hours weekly.

For example, a Grade IV student in one week will take up five hours of Math, five hours of Science, five hours of Filipino, six hours and 40 minutes of English, and five hours of Pag-SIKAP. This means that the five “core learning areas” like Social Studies within Pag-SIKAP will only be allotted one hour each.

Under the proposal, the subject Values Education will be abolished and integrated to the five subjects.

Almeda and Tinio said such proposed features led their organization, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), to conclude that the Millennium Curriculum only streamlines the school curriculum. While it is supposed to provide basic skills, the proposed curriculum sacrifices other aspects that would comprise wholistic education for students. ACT also stressed that the government only wants to design an education program during a period of limited or zero growth in the public budgetary allocation to education as a whole.

UP Journalism Prof. Danilo Arao, on the other hand, argued that the proposed Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) in UP uses the language and rhetoric of globalization since it promotes a free market paradigm. Survival of subjects, as well as teachers and colleges/units offering GE subjects, would depend not on necessity but on the demand of students.

Students have free hand

Under the RGEP, students will be given a free hand in choosing the GE subjects they want. Assuming that the subjects are worth three units each, they can select any five GE subjects for each of the three domains of knowledge (Social Sciences and Philosopy, Arts and Humanities, Natural Sciences and Mathematics).

Arao explained that because of the RGEP, UP will be reduced into a small market where the products sold (i.e., GE subjects) are subjected to market forces (i.e., students).

The principle of “comparative advantage” is also seen in the situation where various UP units (Diliman, Manila, Baguio, Los Baños, Visayas and Mindanao) will prefer to just focus on the GE subjects that they can teach and not develop the important ones but cannot be taught at the moment for whatever reason.

This is the reason, Arao said, that his organization, the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND), opposes the RGEP and calls for a democratic consultation, review and revision of the current GE program.

It is also surprising that the RGEP is silent on the use of Filipino as medium of instruction. Profs. Ramon Guillermo (Filipino dep’t, UP) and Lani Abad (Miriam College) stressed the importance of using Filipino to instill nationalism and provide students with a sense of history and culture.

Both speakers stressed that this is the only way to develop a pedagogy that serves the interests of marginalized sectors of society instead of the moneyed few which use English as the language of subjugation.

Other speakers in the forum were Profs. Isabel Martin and Charlie Veric of the Ateneo’s English Department, as well as Victor Rey Fumar of the Philippine Normal University (PNU).

Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera of the Filipino Department (UP Diliman) and an active member of CONTEND and ACT gave the closing keynote address. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.