Pragmatism and Philippine Education

I envision pragmatism as a permanent solution to the decaying Philippine educational system.  Our current practices in education are still highly influenced by rationalism and empiricism in many respects.  For example, in the curriculum design, the focus is still on the three R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic; on the mastery of the English language (both written and oral); mastery of mathematical operations, and so on. 

Let me discuss specifically on two topics.  First, English as a medium of instruction has been a big problem among Filipino learners because it’s the second language and Filipino educators and policy-makers still believe that what is written in English is reliable and true.  Filipino learners and educators still have the idea, “maayo na mo-eninglish, utokan na!.”  (You're fluent in English, you must be bright or intelligent).  The measurement or indicator of a learned Filipino is fluency in English language (both oral and written).  With this assumption, the influence of rationalism is apparent.  English is a medium of communication and instruction to acquire knowledge and cultivate the intellect of students.  Anyway, knowledge is “constant across time and context,” regardless of race.  So, in the Philippine context, curriculum design should include the mastery of English language.

Mother-tongue based instruction is deemed as the solution to the problem but if you come to think of it mother-tongue based instruction causes more confusion among Filipino learners.  First of all, there is no clear definition of mother-tongue based instruction.  Another is that private schools are not employing mother-tongue, thus ensuing to the disparity of private and public education.  Pupils in private schools speak English, whereas those in public schools speak the mother-tongue.  I think, in pragmatic perspective, the right question to ask is, “What language that really works among Filipino learners?”  In my opinion, if Philippine education system aims for “education for all,” mother-tongue based instruction is the “better” option –better, in the sense that it works in this particular situation.  For a pragmatist, what is important is “students’ interest, as is integration of thinking, feeling and doing.”  Yet, if Filipino learners are struggling in the use and mastery of English language, they have a problem of integration of thinking, feeling and doing.  The fact is: there are thoughts or feelings that Filipino experienced, which cannot be appropriately expressed in English language.  This is because of cultural difference.  What is the pragmatic solution?  Use mother-tongue as a medium of communication and instruction in schools, and make English or any foreign language as elective.

Second, teaching mathematics causes also a lot of problems among Filipino learners.  Math subjects can be classified into elementary and advance.  In college level, many of the advance math subjects are taught among college students.  The rationale behind it is to enhance the thinking skills (rational capability) of students despite the fact that all these advanced mathematical operations cannot be applied in real world of work.  For example, a tourism graduate who took algebra in college is not actually going to apply algebraic operation when he is tour-guiding, or even when he works as front desk in hotels.  In pragmatic perspective, that algebra subject is useless.  It does not “work” in the situation of students.  I believe that there is a need to get rid of subjects in our curriculum, whether required by DEPED or CHED, as long as they are useless or do not serve the purpose of training or “educating” our graduates.

In relation, K-12 program is laudable but still not pragmatic.  Laudable in the sense that the program intends to produce skilled workers needed in industry but not pragmatic in the sense that there are still liberal subjects offered such as Sociology in Grade 11 and Philosophy of Man in Grade 12.  Inclusion of these liberal subjects in K-12 curriculum is still trapped with the problem of rationalism and empiricism.  In pragmatic perspective, we ask the question, “Why is there a need to include those subjects?  Inclusion of liberal subjects doesn’t sound pragmatic.

As an educator (with progressivist and constructivist perspectives), what is important for me is for graduates to develop positive values and life-skills needed for them to survive in the real world.  As Karl Marx said, “philosophers try to understand the world but not change it.”  If we intend to enhance students’ intellectual capability, we train them to become philosophers/ thinkers, who simply understand the world we live in.  This is a very rationalist or an empiricist perspective, or if you like, “perennialist or essentialist”.  To make it sound pragmatic, let’s train our students for them to effect changes in the world in the coming future.   

For me, in essence man is not rational or a “thinking being”, as what rationalist and empiricist suppose.  But, man is a species who tries to survive against the vicissitudes of life.  He is one who struggles in the “survival of the fittest.”  In the process of survival, he develops his rational skills as his coping mechanism to survive in the hostile environment.  Thus, it’s wrong to say that man’s rational capacity is built-in, natural in him but a “product” of his ways and means to survive in the hostile world. 

Based on this reality, we can further unpack two other implications: (1) human reality is not “fixed”; (2) man is guided by “survival instincts.”  In education, the reality of learners is not something fixed and universal.  It’s hard to believe that American learners and Filipino learners are the same –only that Filipinos are second-language learners.  I believe that no two learners are the same.  What is considered true of one is not always true of the other.  In this regard, I advocate the theories of multiple intelligences and differentiated instructions.  On the other end, students are driven by “survival instincts.”  Teachers should teach them how to “survive.”  They need to instil in them the values and necessary life-skills for them to survive in the real world of work.  In this regard, I advocate K-12 law but in a more pragmatic version.

Driven by “survival instincts,” man is selfish in nature.  To survive, he has to advance his self-interest.  In history, battles are fought because a king is protecting his personal interest to remain in power, and many other similar cases where a person or a group of persons waged war to protect their self-interests.  But, there is nothing fixed in man’s nature.  Maybe, at the first stage of man’s development and growth, he is that “brutish and selfish.” Yet, in the higher level of development and growth, man is able to develop moral and intellectual capacities, which eventually leads to develop in him the feeling of sympathy and care for others and his environments. 

In education, students come to school for one main reason: “to survive.”  A student does not come to school to learn how count the food they have in the table or learn to count the money in his pocket (since in the first place there is none –no food, no money), but he is in school looking for food to fill his hungry stomach or looking for money to put in his empty pocket.  With this kind of students in our classroom, it is useless to fill in their minds with “boring lessons.”  As a pragmatic teacher, I teach these students with “positive values and life-skills” to survive in a constantly changing world.

In conclusion, Philippine education system fails because of one reason: we don’t have a clearly defined philosophy of education.  Philosophy defines the system of education but without defining it clearly, philosophy fails so as the system.