The case of Philippine private education

Media

Part of Panorama

Title: The case of Philippine private education
Language: English
Source: Panorama XIX (5) May 1967
Year: 1967
Rights
Fulltext: ■ This is a review of the book entitled “The Case of Philippine Private Education — A Study of a Monolithic System of Education” by Dr. V. G. Sinco (Community Publishers, Inc., Manila). THE CASE OF PHILIPPINE PRIVATE EDUCATION Anyone who is at least fa miliar with trends and issues in Philippine education, the first thing he will note after reading thoroughly Dr. Sinco's latest book is that it lends itself so well to a para dox. Considering the signi ficance of the subject it treats and the cogency with which the treatment is made, the book is one which should find itself into the hands and perusal of newspaper editors, school officials, educators, college students, and, special ly so, our legislators. And yet the paradox would exist that even if it were read by the aforementioned indivi duals, the book, we hazard to guess, will probably re gister only a mild surprise, and no passionate contro versy at all, in the minds of its readers. Why? The rea sons are not hard to seek. In the first place, it has been quite some time now that Dr. Sinco has kept hammer ing at the thesis that the mo nolithic system of education that we have kills creativity and stultifies diversity. So consistent has he been with such a view that readers will correctly guess what his latest book is about. In the second place, the time has now come when the value of Dr. Sinco’s stand is starting to find ac ceptance and adherents who express views closely similar both in content and spirit to Dr. Sinco’s that the process has tended to blur distinc tion between originator and follower. However, that is quite un derstandable. • The fate of those who advocate right but unpopular causes always fol low a distinctive pattern. At first, the advocate is either rejected, spurned, scoffed at or, at the most, paid but the scantiest of attention by the public whose welfare he seeks to serve. Later on, however, time heals wounds, circums May 1967 9 tances bring changes in the direction of the advocate’s favor, distance provides pers pective, until, finally, the cause which was once spurn ed is taken up by the ma jority as a gospel with the vindication of the advocate. The cause that Dr. Sinco has been espousing for over two decades is, of course, far from being accepted by the majority. Indeed, Dr. Sinco himself expressed to this re viewer his plan to enlarge the present book which indicates, more than anything, that he himself is very much aware that there will still be much to do to effectuate the ideas for reform that he writes about. Even so, it is no longer uncommon to hear today some educators and school officials and public officials as well chafe and rail against the deadening effect brought about by the rigid standardization of our educational system which dis courages the “spirit of initia tive and the urge for progress i v e experimentation” of some of our private colleges and universities. Three years ago, for instance, then PACU and Lyceum President Sotero H. Laurel wrote on the twin issues of state power over pri vate schools and the scope of academic freedom in which he used, as one of his spring board for discussion, the case of the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities. Secretary of Education. (51 O. G. 6230). Dr. Sinco’s book is made up of two chapters. In the first, he presents his case against educational standard ization by dwelling on the merits and virtues 0f its op posite, which is diversity. The discussion is mainly an chored on his elucidation of references to and quotations from such eminent figures in science, education and po litics as Prof. Lester Smith, Einstein, Health, Welfare and Education Secretary John W. Gardner, Julian Huxley and the late President Ken nedy. Dr. Sinco also makes references to both the Ameri can and the British educa tional system, with emphasis placed on the latter wherein decisions regarding the adop tion of curriculum and me thod of teaching are left to institutions of higher learn ing. This tells how cognizant is the British government of the fact that no freedom is more important to teachers and educators than the free 10 Panorama dom to choose their own curriculum and method of teaching. Dr. Sinco, how ever, takes care to mention that the freedom that British private colleges and universi ties enjoy is not absolute or irresponsible. Rather, they are “limited by unwritten obligations which compel them to comply with their educational commitments and to maintain expected stan dards of achievement and performance.” The references and cita tions of the views and opinions of established thinkers, however, seem to this reviewer less interesting reading than the personal scrutiny and analysis that Dr. Sinco makes when he comes to the second chapter of the book. It is then that the thrusts of his mastery of the Constitution and his first hand experience as educator and administrator, first, as Director of the Bureau of Private Education in 1945 and later as President of the University of the Philippines are brought into full play. Subjecting the Constitutional provision on education and individual freedom to a ri gorous examination and in the light of major decisions of the United States Supreme Court and state courts such as those of Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U.S. 390), Bartels v. Iowa (262 U.S. 404), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (263 U.S. 510), Farrington v. Tokushige (273 U.S. 284), West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624, 657658) and Parker Collegiate Institute v. University of State of New York (298 N.Y. 184), Dr. Sinco states the dis maying conclusion that state control over private schools in our country contravenes the Constitution because it deprives parents, owners and teachers of private colleges and universities of liberty and property without due process of law; moreover, it deprives parents of their na tural right and duty to rear children for civic efficiency, concerning which Dr. Sinco’s words may be aptly quoted at this point: It should be noted from the terms of the provi sion .... that the Consti tution does not grant the right and duty referred to and involved in it; it ra ther expressly recognizes and acknowledges this at tribute, power, and respon sibility as a natural right May 1967 11 and duty of parents. As such, it is, therefore, an in herent and inalienable right and so it may not be disregarded, limited, cur tailed, trampled upon by any act of legislative de partment, much less by any administrative regulation of an executive official (italic in the original). Moreover, with respect to the powers that the Secretary of Education has over pri vate schools, there is an un lawful delegation of unlimit ed power. Dr. Sinco says: Assuming that the legis lature could enact mea sures on the subject, never theless it is not authorized to delegate this power to administrative officials in broad and unlimited terms. The conclusion that can be derived from Dr. Sinco’s lu cid exposition is irref rage able. It is nothing less than this: We have either kept our minds deliberately closed from rightfully interpreting our Constitution or we have let what he terms a 50 year old tradition of educational “trial and failure” bound us in chains of indifference. For our legal systems and pres criptions are patterned after that of the United States; and yet, strangely enough, clear as the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and state courts are on ques tions so similar to ours, we still come up with different, if not opposite, interpreta tion. Aside from its being Constutionally invalid, state con trol over private schools in our country is, according to Dr. Sinco, downright imprac tical. Upon assumption of office as Director of the Bu reau of Private Education on April, 1945, Dr. Sinco made a thorough and detail ed study of the functions of the bureau and found out that even with the much smaller number of private schools then “the functions of the Bureau and its entire personnel under the law and under its rules and regula tions far exceed in number and difficulty the functions and responsibilities of the Board of Regents, the Uni versity Council, and the dif ferent faculties of the Uni versity of the Philippines. To perform them properly and satisfactorily, we need to have a huge and talented ageny equal to some 10 or more times of the instrumen 12 Panorama talities that the University of the Philippines possesses. For one Bureau to do this work satisfactorily is ridicu lously impossible.” How this transgression on the Constitution evolved is traced by Dr. Sinco in the topic entitled “The Back ground of Private School Su pervision.” Starting with a discussion of Act No. 74 passed by the Philippine Commission, Dr. Sinco then takes into account how the instruction of private schools as well as their facilities were unsatisfactory and inadequate owing primarily to the Spa nish orientation of their founders and teachers, to. the obsolescence of the Spanish language which was the lan guage of instruction used, and, finally, to the difficulty of re cruiting competent American and Filipino instructors. The condition of private schools during that time necessitated the enactment of the legisla tive measure recommended by the Monroe Report “to prohibit the opening of any school by any individual or organization without the per mission of the Secretary of Public Instruction.” Dr. Sin co agrees that as far as the condition then warranted, the placement of private ins titutions of learning under the control of the state was justifiable. However, such a method should have been en forced only as long as the de fect and the inadequacies which it meant to correct existed; otherwise its indefi nite and unnecessary exten sion would only prove ini mical to the growth and wel fare of the private schools which it meant in the first place to foster in the spirit of freedom and liberty. For however well-meant and necessary state control over private schools may have been then, still the threat and danger it posed to the Cons titutional liberty of the in dividual was not lost to per ceptive Filipinos. Indeed, commenting on the perspica city and foresight of La Vanguardia whose editorial of May 22, 1912 decried the act as an offense against the free dom of education, Dr. Sinco takes to task the late Gov ernor-General Forbes. Dr. Sinco writes: "The thought expressed by this editorial... was not understood by Gov. Gen. Forbes, whose previous personal experience was con fined to business and bank ing matters. Without a suf May 1967 13 ficient background of educa tional experience and with a meager knowledge of acade mic problems, he referred to the system as an 'admirable arrangement.’ ” The responsible and judi cious criticism that Dr. Sinco levels against both former Gov. Gen. Forbes and Dr. Joseph Ralston Hayden, the last American Secretary of Public Instruction, are in fact among the highlights of the book. Dr. Sinco’s zeal for re forming our educational sys tem is only equalled by the impartially and justice of his criticism. This can be clear ly seen in Dr. Sinco’s criti cism of Dr. Hayden. Dr. Sinco and Dr. Hayden were personal friends during the pre-war years. During the years immediately following the ‘ conclusion of the last World War, Dr. Sinco was instructed by then Philip pines President Sergio Osrneha to work with Dr. Hay den on the collaboration is sue, a joint venture which, however, did not materialize for both because of the sud den and unexpected death of Dr. Hayden. And yet, it is a measure of Dr. Sinco’s objec tivity and overriding concern for truth that he does not let personal friendship stand in the way of an impartial and just assessment when he scores Dr. Hayden on two counts: First, for not having kept himself abreast with the authoritative pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court on subjects affecting education and individual freedom thereby making him commit the error of inter preting the Constitutional provision which states that "educational institutions shall be under the supervision of and subject to the regulation of the State’’ out of context and unrelated to the substan tive provisions on education found in other parts of the Constitution; and secondly, for making contradictory statements declaring the cate gorical freedom of private schools from state control in another part of his book The Philippines: A Study in Na tional Development which therefore nullified his pre vious statement about the supremacy of the State over the individual. If Dr. Sinco does not spare American public officials and friends from his criticism neither does he exempt the government from the blame of having made a sorry state 14 Panorama of our educational system. The government is to blame, too, because he says that “in spite of the fact that the Phil ippine Corporation Law pro vides special rules for the organization of private col leges as non-stock corpora tions, both the Department of Education and the Securi ties and Exchange Commis sion permitted secular edu cational institutions to be established as stock corpora tions in the same way and for the same ultimate purpose as those of regular business en terprises.” Worse still, he continues, inspite of the enormous amount and the great extent of the assistance rendered by private schools to the govern ment and the people, the government has not seen it fit to reWard those non-stock and non-profit institutions or given them incentives and encouragement. “Profit-mak ing colleges and universities,” Dr. Sinco says, “receive the same treatment and are sub ject to the same rules and re gulations as those that are non-stock and non-profit. It goes without saying, there fore, that the criticism of the Monroe Report against the practice and adverse views expressed by those who dis like the commercial exploita tion of education may conti nue to fall on deaf ears.” The book ends with the invitation that we begin pull ing down our monolithic structure of education by putting into actual practice the principles enunciated by our Constitution which grants autonomy to our pri vate colleges and universities. The same quality of clarity and avoidance of frills that Prof. Rex D. Drillon, Pres ident of Central Philippines University, found in the style of Dr. Sinco’s writings when he reviewed the latter’s Edu cation in Philippine Society in one of the issues of the Philippine Historical Bulle tin can be noted in the pre sent book. To be sure, it is not a style that will fascinate a reader with a propensity for the figurative or meta phorical. This is because Dr. Sinco’s method is clear expo sition, not suggestion, and his goal is instruction rather than pleasure. We surmise that this is largely due to two factors, namely, first, his legal training which makes him always on guard against the airy and the unsubstantiated; second, his personal attitude May 1967 15 towards the craft of writing which makes him disdain and loath the employment of ghost-writers aware as he is that their service can only bring about the insidious cor ruption of the integrity of one’s personal style through their dubious practice of substituting original expres sion with what is ready-made and easily-accessible. And yet, though Dr. Sinco’s style may seem bare at a chance reading, the discerning will find soon enough that it is a style that exhibits variety. One can cite passages in the present book. He can be de vastatingly sarcastic as the following will show: The absurdity of the rule (this refers to the re quirement that textbooks tQ be used in private schools must alike have the approval of the govern ment textbook board) is compounded by the order that textbooks should not be changed until after six years from their date of ap proval. A premium on obsolescence\ (italics sup plied) In places where what is called for is careful consi deration and analysis of Cons’ titutional provisions, he can be singularly distinguishing, as witness: An executive or adminis trative official, such as the Secretary of Education, who categorically pres cribes, directly or indirect ly, under a statutory provi sion, what school children should study, how they should study, when they should study, and how the program of schools should be conducted obviously curtails this natural right of parents recognized by the Constitution; and the law authorizing the official to do so contravenes the Constitution. The author ity so vested merely usurps the parent’s natural right to decide the kind of edu cation and the kind of school he wants for his child. Between such a law that controls the curricu lum, study hours, policies, and practices of private schools and a law that compels all children to go exclusively to p u b li c schools, the distinction be tween a public and private school may be virtually abolished and the demo cratic concept of individual 16 Panorama initiative and diversity in ideas faces the danger of extinction, (italics in the original.) Or else, Dr. Sinco can be telling without indulging in sophistry: One cannot be a teacher unless he has something to teach; and if he should teach only what another tells him, he ceases to be a teacher and becomes only an automaton. It is quite clear that un der the Constitution there are definite boundaries be tween the right of the owner and the teacher of a private school, on the one hand, and the author ity of the government over such schools, on the other. It1 may ' be safely said that to the owner and the teacher belongs the control and direction of the pri vate school; and to the government belongs the supervision over it so it may desist from doing frau dulent acts or from com mitting what is obviously harmful to each student and the public. Summarizing then. The Case of Philippine Private Edu cation, as its title indicates, is a brief on the perils of a monolithic system of educa tion by one who has long been renowned as a consti tutionalist and equally known as an educator and the book, as it now stands, is a happy demonstration of an educa tional subject treated in a legal way in the spirit of scholarship. The net result is a style of writing which utilizes neither the platitudi nous inflection of a mere theoretician or the racy stri dency of the harried jour nalist. — By Artemio M. Tadena. May 1967 17
pages: 9-17