ON THE MANY EDUCATIONAL REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Abstract

The Philippine educational system from the basic education level until the tertiary or
higher education level had undergone reform and overhaul. Despite the brilliant explanations
and justifications of the education officials about the beauty of this reform as this has been
intended to uplift the standard of education of the country and be at par with the global
standard, I argue that the reform suffers democratic and moral deficits as it only focuses on
preparing the students to be docile workers and employees of the rich oligarchs in the country.
The education in the country did not prepare students to become democratic citizens and
moral agents doing social analysis but it prepared skilled professionals, entrepreneurs and
workers devoid of values such as prudence, discernment, contemplation, sense of justice and
altruism. This happens because of too much focus on practical and professional skills for
utilitarian aims as evidenced in the curriculum and program offerings and even school culture
that promotes education for profit and wealth but not liberal education for human formation
and flourishing.

Keywords: Education reform. Human formation and flourishing. Liberal education.

Introduction

The Philippine educational system from the basic education level until the tertiary or
higher education level had undergone reform and overhaul. For the basic education, there was
shift from the Revised Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC) to K-12 curriculum. For the higher
education, there were plenty of reforms in terms of curriculum and program offerings to
respond to the mandate of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). In addition to this,
there are plenty of accrediting bodies directing the higher education institutions to respond to
their demands in order to be accredited. Most often these organizations (CHED and Accrediting
Institutions) are the ones dictating the operation of the school and since the schools wanted to
be included in the lists of “standard” schools, they often follow the demands of these
organizations and satisfy their criteria. The satisfaction of the criteria for accreditation has often
been the driving force for the Catholic and other private higher educational institutions in their
program and curricular reforms, program development and facilities enhancement, rather than

1
their vision, mission and core values. Thus, budget allocation and prioritization are often
towards these areas.
Surprisingly or not, in all these reforms and even criteria for accreditation, there is little
attention to the topic of morality and ethics. Most of these mandates are centered on passing
percentage, curricular achievements of students, qualifications of faculty members in terms of
knowledge and expertise (but not in the area of values and attitudes), facilities and equipment
improvements, among others.
Why is it that these educational reforms and directions are not focused on the most
important aspect of education, which is moral and ethical education? One reason may be the
democratic and moral deficits of our educational system. This clearly reflects that despite many
attempts to make educational reforms and to improve our education, our educational system is
really in crisis. Nussbaum (2009) has triggered the world of education when she said that
education is in crisis because the demands of our global market now center more on
competitiveness, scientific and technical skills as the key skills but with little (if there is) regard
on the moral dimension of the students such as values, imagination, and critical abilities are left
aside and are under threat (p.8-9).

Objective of the paper

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate the Philippine educational
system from the basic education level to the higher education level both in the private and
public sector vis-a-vis moral dimensions of teaching and school leadership. The approach that I
will be taking here is the critical analysis. Here, I will look into the different studies that used the
lens of Dewey’s liberal education and Rousseau’s communitarianism. I will also use Nussbaum’s
perception of the “imminent demise of liberal education” as my lens in critically analyzing the
current educational system of the country. I will develop my argument by looking into the
context of the democratic and moral deficits of our education, which will allow the reader to
see the disconnection specifically in the institutions where I worked and in other educational
institutions that I have engagement with. Then, I will delve into the things that need to be done
in the context of teachers as the moral agent and exemplar.

2
 The questions that serve as the framework of this paper are the following: Is there a
moral dimension to teaching and school leadership? Can school leadership be considered moral
enterprise? What makes teaching and school leadership moral and ethical? These may seem to
be simple and straightforward questions, but as we shall see there is a debate and controversy
surrounding them in the present educational system and set up of the country.

Moral Dimension of Teaching and School Leadership

What is the moral dimension of leadership? According to Defoe (2012) leaders utilize
control to impact and bring approximately result within the behavior of others. He further
describes that the use of supremacy does not happen by chance and that leaders aim to carry
on these changes. Leadership is about influence and influence is also related to power. You can
be powerful if you can influence other people to work on something. Similarly, you are
influential if you can use your power advantageously (Foucault, 1972). Power, according to
Gardner (1990), is impartial. It is impartial for the reason that leaders can use power for good or
bad (p.1). Some leaders use power for good purposes, while certain leaders use power for bad
purposes. So, what allows us to evaluate whether a leader’s use of power is “good” or “bad”?
We set standards. Values and moral standards give us the framework in judging the leader’s
use of power (Defoe, 2012).
What is morality? Gardner (1990) refers it “to the standards by which a community
judges the righteous or wrongness of conduct in all fields.” Also, Hodgson (1994) in his paper
entitled “Understanding Leadership’s Moral Dimension,” define morality in the context of
leadership by giving three concepts that will serve as the philosophical foundation to the study
of school leadership as a moral activity:
(1) Respect for Basic Human Dignity – Hodgson cited Immanuel Kant’s commitment to
the discussion of morality which asserts how “intrinsic worth” (e.g dignity) makes us
valuable “above all price” (p.68).
(2) Regard for Human Agency – Hodgson relates human agency to people as responsible
agents (e.g. with the right and ability to make choices). Humans have the freedom to

3
 choose – and moral judgments are made based on the values of the culture. With
that, freedom comes responsibility (p.68-69).
(3) Morality Differs among Cultures. – According to Hodgson, “morality is an institution”
because we make moral judgments based on the values of the culture we are in and
that making a responsible judgment is more than being true to one’s conscience, but
rather a matter of including awareness also of our culture. (p.69).

T.W. Moore (2010), also in his book, Philosophy of Education, includes a chapter on
education, morals, and religion - where he describes morals or morality as something to do with
human behavior judged from a normative point of view (p. 56).

The Teacher and School Leader as Moral Agent and Exemplar

It is usually believed that there is a close link between education and morals. Teachers
have a duty to advance the moral and ethical training of the students and that teachers are
leaders and moral exemplars (Campbell, 1997, p. 256). Granted that morals have something
important to do with education, we may ask: what is the connection between them? Moore
(2010) described that the connection between them lies from the belief that education is the
“initiation of a pupil into areas of knowledge and understanding which are valuable.”
Jackson et.al. (1993), in their research of the moral life of schools, refer teachers as
leaders and moral agents whose impact encompasses to what they “say and do without
consciously intending to act as moral agents (p.237). In fact, Campbell (1997) in her article
Connecting the Ethics of Teaching and Moral Education, agreeably said that moral agency does
not concern basically to the self-conscious teacher but exemplifies many of the involuntary
forces of teaching. Likewise, she held that “teachers as moral agents transmit values by a
formal instruction of the virtues or admonition (e.g. don't cheat on tests; don't bully your
classmates; don't steal each other's things) and by becoming moral exemplars” (p.256). Thus,
the teacher is, of course, in his/her role as an educator is bound to show morality in his
instruction such as using morally acceptable actions and to show respect for his/her students as

4
persons (Moore, 2010, p. 44). In other words, every teacher must be a teacher of morals. In
Campbell’s (1997) concluding statement, she sums up the role of educators as follows:
“Moral educators are teachers who understand the moral complexities of their role, who
possess a level of expertise in interpreting their own behavior has on students, and who,
as a consequence, strive to act ethically within the context of their professional
responsibilities.” (p. 261)

An evidence indicated from a study about “Moral dimensions of teaching and Pre-
service Teachers: Can Moral Disposition be Influenced?” conducted by Deborah Yost (1997)
found out that the graduates were not only mirroring their teachers’ actions but fundamentally
reflecting on whether these activities have given them the ideal educational experiences (p.
290).

Liberal Education as Moral Education

Moral education, according to Moore (2010), has something to do with influencing
behavior and presumes that a certain amount of knowledge is acquired by the student (p.46).
Moore (2010) contends that moral education is not a necessary part of education in the sense
that when a teacher is teaching math or science, he or she is not engaged in moral teaching.
The subjects such as math or science or history, although value-loaded, are not ‘morally
loaded’. Subjects are neutral with respect to morals. This makes moral education in the
Philippines seemed to be problematic because of the presence of myopic teachers who
dichotomizes their teaching and cannot integrate morality or values in their subjects. For some
English, Science and Mathematics Teachers, as long as their students are good in English,
Science or Mathematics subjects they can proudly say that they are effective and efficient
teachers even if they did not integrate morality and values in their teaching. However, a
teacher must consider the holistic aspect of education and this includes moral education. Thus,
moral education is an essential and necessary part of education because without it education is
not complete (p. 44).

5
 Moreover, Nesteruk (2004) emphasized that as a teacher, living a moral life is important
especially in the aspect of modeling and this can be achieved basically, through constant
practice. In fact, he believed that our greater goal is to enable our social interaction more
prolific on the nature of moral life, thus, determine four (4) vital dispositions: (1) Disposition
toward others; (2) Disposition toward tolerance of differences; (3) Disposition toward the
dignity of all; and (4) Disposition toward reciprocal engagement. He said, "it is the dispositions
enabling the practice of a moral life that give rise to the vital civic culture” (p. 71). The vitality
and affectivity of our civic culture lie in Jean Jacques Rousseau's educational philosophy of
communitarianism. He was the first contemporary communitarian with the idea of "general
will" – in which each person joins together readily for the common good (Kim, 1999, p.120).
In fact, Rousseau’s strategy was by instilling love. The primary place for giving and
experiencing love is the family. Civic instruction, ought to begin from the family – stressing the
point that the family strongly affects democratic education.
Amy Gutmann (1985), who was one of the foremost specialist in the field of civic
education, wrote a book titled Democratic Education where she simplifies all education theories
into three (3) types – (1) family state theories; (2) the state of families, and (3) the state of
individuals. The subsequent words illustrate visibly what she means by democratic education:
“Like the family state, a democratic state of education tries to reach virtue – not the
virtue of family state (power based upon knowledge), but what might be best called democratic
virtue: the ability to deliberate, and hence to participate in conscious social reproduction. Like
the state of families, a democratic state upholds a degree of parental authority over education,
resisting the strong communitarian view that children are creatures of the state. But in
recognizing that children are future citizens, like the state of individuals, a democratic state
defends a degree of professional authority over education – not on the grounds of liberal
neutrality, but to the extent necessary to provide children with the capacity to evaluate those
ways of life most favored by parental and political authorities.”

Analysis
How are the civic culture and education, as well as, the abilities of citizenship doing in
the world today? According to Nussbaum (2009), in her article “The Imminent Demise of

6
Education”, the civic knowledge and abilities of citizenship today is doing very poorly. Why and
how did this occur? Yong Min Kim (1999) elaborately explain in his paper entitled
Communitarianism and Civic Education that in the age of postmodernism we cannot deny the
fact that the ultimate value is placed on individuality. It is also in this modern age, which started
with the revelation of free human beings, developing with the sacredness of person’s rights.
There's no question that the saying 'individuality for the purpose of individuality' has created
such awe-inspiring things such as capitalist advancement, material wealth, refined advanced
culture, momentous advance in science and innovation, extravagance, differing qualities,
refined expressions, solidified respectful freedoms, and so forward (Kim, 1999, p.199). These
things call for world market to focus more on the scientific and technical skill as the important
abilities in the 21st century, and that the humanities and the liberal arts are more and more
seen as of no use, which is often taken away to make sure we remain globally competitive
(Nussbaum, 2009, p. 9). Consequently, the ingenuity and critical abilities were left aside. And at
one point, the highlight of Dewey’s (1916) emphasis on “learning by doing” or experiential
education where students are exposed to different activities to develop their critical thinking
and their social skills is now under threat in favor of an education of economic success.
If these trends of focusing much on the scientific abilities, then what will be the
implications of these in the future? Nussbaum (2009) predicted that we will have people who
are technically trained but don’t know how to criticize authority, do social analysis and thus,
they are only there to make a profit with dull-witted imagination. Our society also will fail to
produce an affectionate community and communal solidarity. This is happening in the many
schools in the country today. Schools want to be at the top in terms of the lists of standard
schools. By standard, they are measured by their passing percentage, scores during board
examinations, number of faculty with masters and doctorate degrees, researches, among
others. But little (if any) is given emphasis on what impact did the faculty and students provide
to the depress communities. Seldom is being asked what kind of professionals or what kind of
graduates do the schools produce? If they have been producing technically expert businessmen
and professionals, the schools don't also bother to scrutinize as to the social and moral
dimensions of these graduates. This is evidenced to the fact that in giving academic and latent

7
honors, the criteria are mostly centered on academic excellence and little, if any, is devoted on
moral and ethical dimensions of these awardees. Thus, they can be cum laude (Summa and
Magna) or valedictorian or graduates with highest distinction even if they are the most
condescending and narcissistic persons in the school, colleges and universities who do not
welcome the opinions of others, especially those whom they consider to be below their
academic and social standing. These graduates cannot embrace and tolerate differences and
the otherness of the others. They are only focus on their own agenda as the norms of success,
beauty and goodness. Multi-culturalism and pluralism do not exist in these myopic graduates.
Hepburn (1993) in her article Concepts of Pluralism and the Implications for Citizenship
Education, argued convincingly that for our democratic pluralist state to endure and for us to
understand and appreciate the nation’s many cultures, we should have “multiculturalism
coexistence”. This seeks a “pluralism of social cohesion” rather than “pluralism of
fragmentation”. Thus, moving forward in citizenship education (p. 26). In addition, Nussbaum
(2009) also strongly pointed out that we need to listen to the ideas of Dewey and Tagore, which
favors on humanizing human beings and their humanity, cultivating the critical thinking
capacity, promoting knowledge and understanding about the cultures that make up our nation
and the ability to sympathize. She was also adamant to the fact that it is essential to have an
education that develops individuals and their humankind, rather than producing ages of
valuable machines (p.13). Clearly, for Nussbaum (2009) and Hepnburn (1993), education
should be education for democratic citizenships. It is about preparing the students to acquire
skills, attitudes and values necessary for them to live well and peaceably with other human
beings. It is about having the right attitudes and values as well as the necessary moral and
ethical principles as they engage the world. In short, education is about human capabilities and
the realization of human potentials (Nussbaum, 210).
Mahatma Gandhi once said, "If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world
would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change
towards him." The world we live in today is so full of negativity that our democracy and
education are going down-hill fast. Today, people are driven for profit (Nussbaum, 210). This
happens because educational institutions are also seen to be profit-driven and not mission-

8
oriented organizations. They love students who are docile and subservient to their apparatus of
control embedded in the curriculum and program offerings as well as in the different policies
and laws in the schools, colleges and universities (Foucault, 1972). This mindset and system
dominated our world with the motivation to have a good yield in which we think that science
and technology are very essential and are of crucial importance for the future of our nation.
Thus, the country was able to produce scientists and professionals who do not have the heart
for the poor, politicians who are corrupt and businessmen who continued to do extractive
business activities for the sake of profit but at the expense of the environment and indigenous
peoples communities.
Allow me to plausibly make an example here to point out the context. My first work
assignment after given a break from my religious formation was with the Government Science
High School in Southern Mindanao. When I first worked as a social science teacher as well as a
dorm prefect in that school, I was religiously oriented that these students are trained to be
future scientists of our nation. So I was a bit worried on how to motivate my students to be
humanists while engaging themselves in hardcore sciences. The mission and vision of the school
was focused more on developing the students to become globally competitive in science and
technology. And I was challenged to help them develop their human side so that they can
become humanistic scientists or scientific humanists. I was unwavering to the thought that
these kids are of service to the nation if given proper and integrative education. So that is
where I pulled out my strength – to emphasize to them the importance of having ethical and
moral values in a democratic and moral citizenship.
The demands of the global market have made us focus on scientific and technical
proficiency as the key abilities – then the humanities, philosophy, theology, values education,
and the arts are persistently repressed. This is evidenced even in budget for conducting
research projects as more money is given to those who would like to conduct studies in pure
sciences especially on innovation and technology but those who would like to pursue studies on
humanities and arts like philosophy and theology, there is less enthusiasm on the part of the
school leadership to fund these projects. In my current school now, Cor Jesu College, whic is a
Catholic school, some philosophy subjects that were previously offered to the college students

9
especially to the education students were cancelled in favor of field studies because the school
wanted to have a ‘hands-on’ learning experiences for their future educators, rather than
preparing them to become equipped with philosophical principles. Other philosophy subjects
for other programs like business and engineering were also cancelled in favor of some subjects,
which for them, are faithful to the outcomes-based education (OBE) espoused by CHED. True to
what Nussbaum (2009) said that if we do not demand the significance of the humanities and
expressions of the human experience (liberal arts), they will drop away in light of the fact that
they don't give us much profit. (p.13)
Another instance in the Philippine Science High School where humanities and arts were
not given importance is during research conferences. The organizer excluded the humanities
research output of students. Only science-related researches were given the opportunity to
publicly show it to the entire “PISAY” community. This is because for them researches on arts
and humanities are nonsense and that they cannot contribute to the economic growth of the
country.
As school administrator now in a private Catholic college my task in the student services
is to conceptualize, plan, implement and supervise student activities and formation. Part of the
activities that I have been implementing is organizing symposiums and forums related to
cultural and gender sensitivity and appreciation, peace and environment, HIV and AIDS
awareness, federalism, among others. Despite efforts to collaborate with some academic heads
to take advantage of these activities by bringing their students to join the activities and assign a
paper to work on such as critical reflection or reaction paper so that their students will really
join, many teachers considered these activities as hindrance to the completion of the subject
matter that must be covered in their class to ensure the passing of the board of their students.
It has been my struggle since most of these teachers considered extra-curricular activities of
students (including leadership and immersion activities) as barriers to their education. But what
education are they talking about? Will passing the board exam make their students cultivated
and compassionate individuals? Compassion is a core value of Cor Jesu College and in my little
capacity, I wanted to implement programs and activities such as community immersions,
outreach programs, and the like wherein students can really practice compassion. But I

10
encountered some forms of resistance coming from some of the faculty members. I also do not
find plenty of supporters for this advocacy. Those in the higher administration are also not
consistent in terms of supporting my advocacy. I understand them because they need to
increase passing percentage not only for accreditation purposes but also for marketing and
promotion because they want to have more students to enroll for economic survival.
Honestly, I have no problem and I do not question the focus on scientific and technical
education much as I do not wish to say that people or individuals should stop trying to advance
and develop in this regard. However, the concern is that other skills and abilities which are of
equal importance, such as formation of virtues and moral as well as ethical education needed
for active and productive citizenships, are now at risk to be lost in this competitive world. These
are the qualities and abilities that are needed for our democracy to survive. I totally agree to
what Nussbaum (2009) pointed out that the abilities that are crucial to the survival of the
democratic self-government in the modern world is to give importance to critical thinking, to
have knowledge about the many cultures that make up one nation; and the "ability to imagine
the situation of another person" (sympathy or compassion). Yong Min Kim (1999) pointed out
brilliantly on how to remedy this kind of weakness stemming from ‘individuality for the sake of
individuality’ is by supplanting the term ‘for the sake of both individuality and community.’
So as teachers and school administrators, who are chosen to be the moral agents and
exemplar to our students, we need to cultivate among the students the moral and ethical
virtues and this can be fully achieved if our educational system will focus on liberal education
rather than purely technical education for profit and economic growth. Liberal education that
promotes humanities, arts, civic knowledge, and democratic citizenship will bring the students
into the different issues of gender, race, ethnicity, culture and an understanding in all of these.

Conclusion
The present educational system in the Philippines is in crisis. And the reason behind is
because of the focus on the scientific and technological skills as the key abilities in the 21 st
century giving emphasis on the drive for economic profit and leaving the moral dimensions
apart. Thus, as teachers we should be moral agents and exemplars to our students by listening,

11
once again, to the philosophies of Nussbaum which focuses on human capabilities. We also
need to listen to Rousseau and Dewey, who favored an education that promotes the critical
capacities, that nurture a complex understanding of the world and its peoples, and that teach
the capacity for compassion – in other words, as educators we have to cultivate in our students
the moral and ethical standards of our society, the values, the civic knowledge (citizenship) and
their humanity, treat them with respect, rather than, producing generations of useful machines.

REFERENCES
Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Univ of California
Press.

Campbell, E. (1997). Connecting the ethics of teaching and moral education. Journal of teacher
education, 48(4), 255-263.
Defoe, D. (2013, February 19). Legal Leadership 101 – Lesson No. 2: The Moral Dimension.
Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://www.psycholawlogy.com/2012/06/20/legal-
leadership-101-lesson-no-2-the-moral-dimension/

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York. Pamtheon Books.

Gardner, J.W. (1990).  On Leadership.  New York, NY:  The Free Press (Chapter 7, “The Moral
Dimension”, pages 67-81)

Gutmann, A. (1985). Communitarian critics of liberalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 24,
No. 4, pages 620-652.

Hepburn, M.A. (1993). Concepts of pluralism and the implications for citizenship education. The
Social Studies, 84(1), oo. 20-26.

Hodgson, T. A. (1994). Understanding Leadership's Moral Dimension. Journal of Leadership

Studies, 1(3), 67-77.

Jackson, P.W., Boostrom, R.E., & Hansen, D.T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass

Kim, Y. M. (1999). Communitarianism and Civic Education. International Area Review, 2(2), 117-

136.

12
Moore, T. W. (2010). Philosophy of Education (International Library of the Philosophy of
Education Volume 14): An Introduction. Routledge.

Nesteruk, J. (2004). Liberal education as moral education. National Civic Review, 93(1), 68-72.

Nussbaum, M. (2009). Tagore, Dewey, and the Imminent Demise of Liberal Education. Oxford
Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.00
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs Humanities. Princeton University
Press. New Jersey, USA.

Yost, D. S. (1997). The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: Can moral
dispositions be influenced? Journal of teacher education, 48(4), 281-292.

13