[Time Trowel] How to truly decolonize the Philippines’ educational system
A trowel (/ˈtraʊ.əl/), in the hands of an archaeologist, is like a trusty sidekick – a tiny, yet mighty, instrument that uncovers ancient secrets, one well-placed scoop at a time. It’s the Sherlock Holmes of the excavation site, revealing clues about the past with every delicate swipe.
On July 4, 2024, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of Philippine-American Friendship Day, commemorating the Philippines’ independence from the United States. This momentous event marks not just a political milestone but also a reflection on an enduring legacy: the imposition of the US-style educational system in the Philippines.
Over a century ago, this curriculum aimed to Americanize Filipinos. Today, we still grapple with defining “Filipinoness” as a patriotic identity, often at the expense of embracing diversity. Recently, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered the incoming education secretary, Senator Sonny Angara, to strengthen subjects on Philippine history.
The Philippine educational system, however, faces significant challenges, highlighted by recent findings that the country lags behind in global learning assessments. According to reports, Filipino students rank at the bottom in tests measuring reading comprehension and other academic skills, underscoring a critical issue in the nation’s education.
This alarming trend raises questions about the root causes and the long-term implications for the Philippines’ development. While various factors contribute to this educational crisis, a historical perspective reveals the deep-seated influence of colonial legacies, particularly the Americanization of the Philippine education system. Understanding these roots is essential to addressing current shortcomings and forging a path toward true educational reform and decolonization.
The Americanization of Philippine education
The pervasive influence of the American education system on the Philippines is a cornerstone of understanding the broader impacts of colonialism on Filipino society. When the United States took control of the Philippines following the 1898 Spanish-American War, it employed a strategy of military conquest and cultural assimilation, named “Benevolent Assimilation.” This approach mirrored tactics used against Native Americans, aiming to pacify and assimilate through education.
The Americanization of the Philippines through education was nuanced and calculated. Emerging after a violent campaign that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Filipino revolutionaries, this strategy was rooted in the American experience with Native American education systems. These systems were designed to mold indigenous peoples into Euroamerican socio-cultural frameworks. William Howard Taft, the US governor-general of the Philippines in 1901, believed that educating natives in the American way would make them loyal and industrious. This philosophy shaped the Philippine educational curriculum, which aimed to deeply embed American cultural norms and English language proficiency.
Despite the absence of boarding schools, which were a hallmark of Native American assimilation, the curriculum imposed in the Philippines was intended to instill American values and ways of life. Unlike European imperial powers that often exploited colonies without significant societal building, American colonial administrators positioned education as a tool for preparing Filipinos for eventual self-governance. However, this “preparation” was deeply skewed towards American interests, sidelining indigenous cultures and languages in favor of a Western-centric view.
Regional transformations under American rule
The cultural remodeling went beyond mere educational reforms. In the Cordilleras, for example, the imposition of an American-style education transformed local identities. This region, initially loosely governed by the Spanish and largely resistant to Catholic conversion, was reimagined under American rule. The introduction of American cultural symbols, such as country music and cowboy attire, alongside English as a prominent language, crafted a unique cultural blend that distinguished the Cordilleras from other Philippine regions. These transformations were not mere cultural curiosities but a deliberate attempt to refashion the identity of the indigenous peoples to align more closely with American values.
Moreover, the establishment of American colonial presence, like in the town of Kiangan in Ifugao, further solidified the new cultural and educational policies. American strategies involved not just education but also the reconfiguration of local customs and community structures to foster a pan-Cordilleran identity. This was reminiscent of their policies towards Native Americans, where the customary rituals and community gatherings were used to encourage a sense of unity and American allegiance. Over time, these policies effectively reshaped the regional identities, leading to a shared Cordilleran identity significantly influenced by American norms and educational policies.
The lasting impact and the need for decolonization
This educational and cultural reshaping under American rule has had lasting impacts on Filipino society. It challenged and often supplanted indigenous practices and perspectives with American ones, fundamentally altering the educational landscape and cultural identities in the Philippines. The legacy of this Americanization is still evident today, as it continues to influence educational practices and cultural perceptions in the Philippines. This historical context is crucial for understanding the ongoing efforts and challenges in decolonizing Filipino education and reclaiming indigenous identities and knowledge systems.
Decolonizing scholarship has gained momentum in recent years, but true decolonization requires more than just replacing Western perspectives with non-Western ones. It demands a fundamental shift in how knowledge is produced and valued. For the Philippines, the roots of this challenge can be traced back to the American colonial era, when the US educational system significantly influenced Philippine education. To decolonize, we must first focus on capacity-building among local communities.
A classic example here would be the DepEd’s “vernacularization” policy. Despite significant evidence showing that comprehension is key to effective learning, English continues to be the dominant medium of instruction in the Philippines. This preference persists even in the face of the DepEd’s Mother-Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) policy, which was institutionalized in 2009 and implemented in 2012. This policy mandates the use of learners’ first languages for instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3, with the goal of improving literacy and cognitive development by making education more accessible and comprehensible to young students.
However, challenges remain in fully realizing the potential of the MTB-MLE policy. While the policy aims to foster better learning outcomes through the use of mother tongues, English is still widely seen as a key to economic and social mobility. This results in a persistent push towards English-medium instruction in many schools. Moreover, the implementation of MTB-MLE has faced practical difficulties, such as a lack of adequate resources and training for teachers to effectively deliver instruction in multiple languages.
This situation underscores a broader issue in the Philippine education system: the balancing act between maintaining national identity and cultural diversity while also striving for global competitiveness through proficiency in English. As the country continues to navigate these challenges, it is crucial to recognize and address the gaps in policy implementation to truly benefit from a multilingual educational approach.
Empowerment and capacity-building
True decolonization begins with empowering communities to reclaim their narratives. This means investing in local scholars, providing resources for research, and nurturing environments where non-Western epistemologies can thrive. Capacity-building involves creating robust infrastructures that support indigenous research methodologies and voices. Agency ensures these communities have the power to define their research agendas and interpret their findings.
The debate between maintaining academic integrity and embracing community-engaged research highlights the tension in decolonizing efforts. Decolonized research often requires more resources and time, a significant hurdle in the competitive field of academia. Traditional funding agencies may not readily support these innovative approaches, and institutions can be slow to change. Moreover, the risk of politicizing anthropology is a genuine concern, potentially shifting the discipline from scholarly inquiry to social activism.
Decolonization is intrinsically linked to historical justice. The call for decolonization is also a call to rectify historical wrongs and acknowledge the contributions and knowledge systems of marginalized communities. This is evident in the struggle to return colonial-era artifacts held in museums and in the recontextualization of these items to reflect their true heritage. By acknowledging and rectifying these injustices, we can create a more just and accurate representation of history and culture.
The road to decolonizing scholarship is complex and ongoing. It requires a commitment to building capacity and empowerment within marginalized communities. By encouraging communities to take control of their educational and research narratives, we can begin to dismantle the colonial structures that have long dominated the academic world. This transformation is not just about changing the content of our research but about fundamentally rethinking how we produce and value knowledge.
The path to decolonizing scholarship in the Philippines is about reclaiming and empowering local voices. It involves recognizing the historical roots of the current educational system and making deliberate efforts to build capacity and foster agency within local communities. Perhaps, with the mandate from the Office of the President to strengthen the teaching of history, we would be able to create a landscape that truly reflects the diversity and richness of Filipino culture and heritage. – Rappler.com
Stephen Acabado is professor of anthropology at the University of California-Los Angeles. He directs the Ifugao and Bicol Archaeological Projects, research programs that engage community stakeholders. He grew up in Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Follow him on IG @s.b.acabado.