DepEd estimates some 21 million students are presently
enrolled in public schools. (http://www.media.photobucket.com)
DepEd estimates some 21 million students are presently
enrolled in public schools. (http://www.media.photobucket.com)
Why is History taught in school?
“History serves numerous purposes: from the development of citizens as meaningful members of a larger community with which they identify, to the training of the mind in critical thinking and sound judgment,” explained Dr. Maria Serena L. Diokno, professor of History at UPD’s College of Social Sciences and Philosophy.
Yet, issues and controversies confronting the Social Studies curriculum and textbooks in the country make the subject the weakest link in basic education, reveals the study “Making a Case for History in Basic Education.”
“In many parts of the world, Social Studies textbooks are hounded by questions regarding content, learning goals and methods, and politics,” Diokno said.
The study. The study, which focused on the public school Social Studies textbooks and the 2002 curriculum was conducted by History professors Ariel C. Lopez (who reviewed the Gr. 1 and 2 textbooks); Ruel V. Pagunsan (Gr. 3 and 4); Jely A. Galang (Gr. 5 and II HS); Dr. Ma. Mercedes G. Planta (Gr. 6 and I HS); and Kristoffer R. Esquejo (III HS).
Dr. Emmanuel de Dios, professor at the UP School of Economics and its current dean, reviewed the fourth year high school economics textbook and teacher’s manual.
Diokno headed the review team.
Taking the discipline of History as perspective, the study weighed the Social Studies curriculum in terms of its historical content (factuality and sequence, interpretation, point of view and bias, if any) and competencies that are specific to the discipline of History rather than knowledge in general.
Study results. Overall, the review team found four major issues in terms of curricular and textbook content. These were: 1) an overwhelming emphasis on civics at the expense of Philippine history; 2) civic values tend to” essentialize” the Filipino as stereotype and myth; 3) lodged in some of these values are biases that run contrary to the avowed curricular goal of teaching Filipino pride, identity and membership in the community, nation and world; and 4) Philippine history, where taught, is approached from a limited, at times biased perspective that has the effect of sanitizing the past or presenting an incomplete picture of it.
One of the study’s major findings is the imbalance in the treatment of History and civics, especially in the elementary Social Studies textbooks. In basic education, History tends to get confused with Civics, Diokno pointed out.
“History as a subject is taught in only one year, in the fifth grade, at the elementary level and shares the Makabayan subject (for Gr. 1-3) with civics and culture, geography, music and the arts, health education, home economics, and good manners and proper conduct. In upper elementary school (Gr.4-6), History shares the Hekasi subject with geography and civics,” she said.
On the other hand, the high school Social Studies curriculum focuses on History: Philippine History (1st year), Asian History (2nd year), World History (3rd year) and Economics (4th year). However, Diokno said this is insufficient and is aggravated by the fact that some Filipino children no longer proceed to the high school level. She expressed apprehension that “our children grow up and take their place in society with little inkling of our past.”
She also questioned whether the Department of Education (DepEd) could really achieve its desired outcome—that the Filipino child exhibit “pride as a Filipino citizen and as part of the global community”—upon completing the sixth grade.
DepEd estimates some 21 million students are presently enrolled in public schools.
The study further showed that some elementary textbooks are flooded with biases in religion, ethnicity and gender. Moreover, the textbook’s treatment of the colonial period is said to be cursory or in Pagunsan’s description has a “soft treatment.”
With regard to the competencies, the study showed that: 1) training is critical and interpretive thinking is inadequate, while knowledge and retention of values and facts are highlighted; 2) competencies particular to historical thinking such as gathering information so as to form an opinion, the use and analysis of primary sources—even of those presented in the textbooks of Gr. 5 and first year high school—are not developed; and 3) training in writing is woefully inadequate since the assessment exercises lean toward objective, multiple type tests at the elementary level, and enumeration in first year high school.
Recommendations. To improve the Social Studies curriculum and textbook content, the review team recommended a general platform of change or a launching pad for further discussions by the education specialists, academic historians, Social Studies teachers and school administrators, concerned parents, non-profit organizations devoted to basic education and officials of the DepEd and its curriculum and textbook review divisions.
The researchers also proposed the application of History as the core subject of Social Studies and the incorporation of civics, geography and other social science concepts. They pointed to the need to devise history-based content standards and historical competence standards in the curriculum.
Lastly, the team proposed to strengthen the disciplinal content of teacher training while maintaining the importance of pedagogical knowledge.
Capping the presentation, the review team reiterated: “Making a case for History in basic education is not just the concern of historians. It ought to be yours, too. Historians do not own the past. We all do.”
The policy paper was funded and supported by Sephis, a South-South exchange program and the affiliate of Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program (SEASREP). It was presented at a policy dialogue at the Faculty Center 28 Aug.
—Haidee C. Pineda