Education in a period of reconstruction

Keynote Address of President Edgardo J. Angara
at the 7th National Convention of the Philosophy of Education Society of the Philippines
on December 5, 1986
Francisco Benitez Theater
College of Education, U.P. Diliman, Quezon City

Let me begin by congratulating the Philosophy Education Society of the Philippines both for the timeliness of the theme you have chosen for your 7th annual convention as well as for your contribution to public understanding of the issues that confront Philippine education.

The theme of your convention certainly suggests that while we must have a universalist perspective, yet we ought to consider carefully the particularities of our time and place. We are indeed in a period of reconstruction, for there is some truth in the view that much of what we had built before had been ruined by disastrous policies - or, often, a lack of coherent policies - the last decade or so.

We reflect on the full extent of the damage that needs repairing, we must ask ourselves: Where and how did we go wrong? How do we explain our past mistakes? In our introspection, we examine our perspectives, we review our values, we look at our priorities, and we even probe into our national character. The soul-searching process, because it ought to lead to an improvement in the state of mind of the nation, is a fundamental concern of educationalists and philosophers. You have a great role in recasting our outlook as a people and raising the level of our reflection. These are not abstract philosophical principles anymore. They have become practical and necessary concerns.

It suggests to me that education is at the very core of the most urgent issues that confront our society not the least of which is our chronic state of economic underdevelopment. We all know that much effort has been expended in trying to reorient our educational system so that it might function in harmony with state policies meant to hasten economic growth. But in retrospect, we begin to wonder whether there was any underlying philosophy of education at all. Or even if there was, we question its narrow assumptions.

It is my impression that in the recent past the role of education in relation to economic development was not clearly defined and appreciated. the school system was given the task of developing technical skills. The emphasis was on technology, on imparting those talents and tools that would directly contribute to gaining employment. It was a practical response to a practical problem. However, the burden of underdevelopment remains. Whatever skill acquired in themselves were not sufficient to reveres the economic trend. And even if more skills were taught, the problem would still persist. At issue is not a matter of technique but one of perspective. The real question is not so much how, but why?

It is certainly true that an appropriately-trained pool of manpower is indispensable to any effort to achieve economic progress, and this truth is acutely obvious to everyone, most especially to policy and decision-makers. It is certainly tempting to err on the side of the immediate need and of expediency: Why not, it has been argued, develop technical courses whose graduates can immediately be employed, whose skills will be immediately marketable? Why demand that our educational system should teach such values as social responsibility, or even social purpose - or the appreciation of the humanities, of philosophy and intellectual activity?

The answer is that the teaching of values enables men and women not only to become better persons but also better citizens and members of society: a citizenry without an awareness of social purpose and responsibility of its worth as a community and as a segment of a larger humanity cannot reach the end of real development. Such a citizenry may be technically capable, but it cannot expect be expected to contribute to the collective vision necessary to develop a society towards the human purposes of equality, justice, and freedom. To opt for what is merely convenient is to ignore the future, and is ultimately self-defeating, because development based on the incentive of material well-being alone rests on shaky ground.

We cannot leapfrog to a higher stage of economic development just because we have the required skills. The door to modernization is open only to those who can cope with its demands. This means that in our attempt to modernize, we must be equipped with appropriate coping mechanisms in terms of supportive values. What among our indigenous values we must enhance and what foreign cultural influences we should adopt is a difficult question.

The complexity of this particular question alone should give us all ample food for thought. I suggest that we should not rush headlong into practice without being certain of the assumptions, purposes and conceptual bases of what we want to implement in the real world. We may indeed discover that we have yet to exhaust the theoretical parameters of a Philippine philosophy of education - meaning a philosophy of education that has examined the Philippine condition, that has defined its needs and problems, and is prepared to develop the appropriate solutions education can provide. That philosophy, let me emphasize, must resist the temptation to sacrifice on the altar of economic growth those other aspects of the human personality which define our humanity.

I hope that these remarks would be helpful. They reflect my concern for the emergence of a philosophy of education that can resolve the often-conflicting claims of immediate need and long-term requirement, of material reality and spiritual anguish, of theory and practice.

Education, if I may repeat myself, is at the very core of basic issues that confront not only ours, but all of human society. All educators have a tremendous responsibility, and it is my hope that your convention will contribute something to the difficult but necessary effort of developing philosophy of education suited to our needs but at the same time worthy of the broad purposes of human development.

Thank you.