Similar to ongoing discussions about the existence of Filipino philosophy, questions remain whether there is indeed a Filipino philosophy of education or not. Several scholars have sought an authentic Filipino philosophy of education that is untouched by colonization, while others have acknowledged that foreign influence cannot be taken away from the different aspects of being Filipino including their philosophy of education. Additionally, some scholars have criticized the coloniality that is evident in the nation-state’s perspectives on education, whereas others have recognized (...) the contributions of Western thoughts in shaping the discourse on Philippine education. The general education curriculum recently mandated by the Commission on Higher Education of the Philippines for undergraduate students, for instance, displays these opposing views. Its emphasis on progressive education and social reconstruction clearly shows the pervading influence of John Dewey on Philippine education. Such articulations on the purpose of Philippine higher education by the nation-state, on the one hand, can be construed as ‘un-Filipino.’ On the other hand, they can mean ‘Filipinization’ of the Philippine higher education, which involves appropriating Deweyan philosophy of education to suit the local context and to render the curriculum more responsive to the needs of the Filipino people amidst a rapidly globalizing world. Both viewpoints are relevant in offering a nuanced understanding of the Filipino philosophy of education. The former challenges us to reflect on what constitutes the Filipino identity, whereas the latter urges us to unravel the vestige of coloniality in the prescribed curriculum to bring out its ‘Filipino-ness.’. (shrink)

Liz Jackson is Professor of Education and Head of Department of International Education at the Education University of Hong Kong. Liz served as the President of the Philosophy of Education Society...

The complicated colonial history of the Philippines impacts notions of gender in the Islands. Specifically, institutions with strong foreign roots, such as universities, maintain and challenge gender relations. The Philippines sees multiple gender issues in universities despite government-mandated gender mainstreaming policies for education (CMO-1), yet the influence of colonial values remains overlooked. This article contributes to philosophising Philippine education by providing the history of the country’s universities and their role in shaping gender relations. A threefold model of gender structures, relations (...) of power, production and cathexis (emotional attachment), frames historical literature during the Philippines’ Spanish and American colonial periods and contextualises the country’s gender order. The interplay of religion and higher education during the Philippines’ Spanish colonial period reveals why sexuality remains policed by education institutions. The gendering of courses during the American Colonial period details the feminisation of certain disciplines and occupations. Harmful manhood practices adopted during this period continue to affect men in university systems through Philippine fraternities. Lastly, private education perpetuates and maintains power among the elite. The evolution of the Philippine university provides points for analysis for gender issues. These become building blocks to the discourse surrounding the Filipino philosophy of education, by understanding facets of Filipino identity construction, and proposing avenues to explore when decolonising the university. (shrink)

Filipino philosophy of education involves layers of meanings blurred by foreign assumptions. Any study that enlightens this theme is relevant and necessary. Hence, I intend to contribute to the aim of shedding light and exploring the richness of this discourse. Specifically, I focus on the historicity of Filipino philosophy, particularly under its colonial past. The literature suggests that education has been shaped by the colonizers, in particular, Christianity by the Spaniards and Pragmatism by the Americans. Albeit systematic, these philosophies of (...) education did less to alleviate national consciousness that could have developed into genuine economic progress, ethical mindfulness, and quality living for its people. I argue that this dissonance between theory and practice is entrenched in adherence to distant educational philosophies. This study proposes to address the issue by returning to Filipino indigenous teachings. Jeremiah Reyes (2015) identifies two Filipino virtues: loób and kapwa, which I attempt to appropriate in the contemporary pedagogy amidst the worldwide capitalist environment. This return to indigeneity further hopes to shape a critical yet optimistic trajectory of Filipino philosophy of education in the future. (shrink)

In this paper, I provide a brief overview of the development of analytic philosophy in the Philippines. I first highlight the circumstances that led to its inception in the late 1930s, and some of the notable works by prominent Filipino analytic philosophers that helped shape the tradition. Next, I discuss the socio-political climate in the late 1950s through the 1970s that may have led some Filipino philosophers to move away from analytic philosophy. Finally, I explore some signs of its re-emergence (...) in the late twentieth century and its possible trajectories in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Critical thinking (CT) in the Philippine basic education curriculum may be said to be clearly evident in the inclusion of “Trends, Networks and Critical Thinking in the 21st Century”. The course is required in the senior high school HUMSS track. CT in Philippine education is likely based or patterned upon U.S.’s “teaching for thinking” program. In Lipman’s survey (2003), the program transitioned to “teaching for critical thinking.” The Philippines was a U.S. colony from 1898 to 1946. This historical and yet (...) colonial reason for teaching CT appears mitigated by a seeming universal recognition of the necessity for teaching critical thinking in schools in every culture. Such recognition appears clear, for example, in Noddings (2016). Despite the existence of such a reason, however, there appears a need to supplement it with ones other than from the perspective of the west. The perspective referred to is that of Confucian ethics. Confucian ethics gives attention to good, sound reasoning (Lai 2006), which suggests an emphasis on CT. Given that, Confucian ethics likely promotes teaching of CT. The proposal here is that in the consideration of reasons or views for teaching CT in the country, a non-western point of view, that of Confucian ethics, be given a hearing. (shrink)