Author Archives: M.A.D. LIGAYA

On Teaching Philosophies

No two teachers are alike. Even if they are from the same race and culture and graduated from the same university, don’t expect them to embrace the same educational philosophies and to develop the same set of beliefs and values. You won’t see them apply the same methods and strategies in the classroom, approach teaching and learning with the same degree of passion, and treat the learners in the same manner.

Teachers are different in many ways.

Teachers decide which perspectives they would use when looking at their role as mentors and when looking at their students. Such perspective depends on either the philosophical foundations upon which they are grounded or their personal set of beliefs… or maybe both.

Teachers may have read too much of Hegel,  Kant, and Plato that they may have developed idealistic tendencies indoctrinating their students into believing that they do not exist for themselves but for others and for a higher purpose. Or like Aristotle, Locke, or Rousseau (who all tried to debunk the ideas established by Plato and company) the teachers maybe slowly training their students to subscribe to rational thinking, that the latter need to think critically and scientifically. They could be pragmatists like Dewey and Kilpatrick, guiding students to keep themselves in touch with reality for they believe that there is no other world aside from what can be perceived by the senses.

Whatever values and beliefs teachers have doesn’t really matter for as long as nothing they say and do in the class is inimical to the interests of the students. What is important is that everything that they say and do in the classroom is intended to lead  the students to the attainment of their full potentials, help them acquire and develop the necessary knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values,  and prepare them to live a meaningful and productive life. Teachers should  not forget Descartes’ view of formal education – “It is the process of acquiring and developing quality or skill.”

So, for as long as the end is to make the students the best they can be, the philosophy upon which the teachers grounded their teaching doesn’t matter.

So be it if  the teachers are like Satre, leaning towards Existentialism in guiding the students to take responsibility in deciding who they are in order to make themselves authentic individuals.

Nobody can claim that this or that philosophical perspective in education is superior to the other. It’s fine if the teachers wish to embrace all the philosophies and combine their best features to serve and guide them in shaping their set of values and in choosing their methods and strategies.

Combining the philosophies is not, by the way, a novel idea. In Scholasticism, St. Thomas Aquinas, harmonized Idealism and Realism. What about coming out with a philosophical perspective combining the four major philosophies in Education?

The philosophies aforementioned have shaped the teachers into the kind of educators that they are today. Whatever they knowingly and unknowingly say and do in the classrooms are offshoots of their set of values and beliefs. And this set of values and beliefs constitute their philosophy of education.

Teachers may have also accumulated  through the years a personal system of values that govern every decision they make in the classrooms. Thus we see them approach their teaching (and deal with their students) in different ways. We see them display different degrees of enthusiasm in teaching. Some display no enthusiasm at all.

There are teachers who are “sages on the stage” who believe, the way the realists and idealists do, that knowledge emanates from them being the authorities. So, the students should be spoonfed. Conversely, there are teachers, who, like the existentialists and pragmatists, act like “guides on the side” painstakingly guiding the students to self-discovery.

There are teachers who would choose specific methods and strategies without considering the specific needs of their students. But there are also those who would be conscientious enough to take into consideration the heterogeneity in the class before deciding what learning system they would put into effect.

There are teachers whose mere mention of their names would either disgust the students or send shivers down their spine. Conversely, there are teachers who try to make learning fun making the students enjoy, and not fear, the classroom.

There are teachers who consider the classroom a workplace, while others consider it a playground. They work playfully or playfully work happy doing what they are doing in the classroom thereby rubbing off to the students their joyful spirit and make learning fun.

There are teachers who have seemingly forgotten that the students are not just empty sheets waiting to be filled out as in Locke’s Tabula Rasa. The kids in the classrooms are not wax figures with empty minds which the teachers need to stuff with all the knowledge that the curriculum requires. These students are not just intellectual beings, they have emotions. They have needs beyond knowledge and skills. They also need respect, love, and understanding. They should be treated the way parents would treat their children. What for that we call the school the second home? What for that we call the teachers the second parents?

Whatever the teachers decide to be… whatever system they implement… whatever method and strategies they apply… however they view learning… however they treat their students… would depend on their perspectives as dictated by their educational philosophy and their set of values and beliefs.

The way  teachers conduct themselves as professionals and the way they treat their students depend on whether they treat teaching as means of livelihood or a way of life.

What We Filipinos Ought To Realize (4)

(Last of 4 parts)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

In the first three parts of this series, I identified our serious faults as Filipinos – we sell our votes, we use questionable standards when choosing leaders, we treat elections as if they are popularity contests allowing immensely popular but inexperienced and incompetent celebrities to win, and we either keep  restoring from the “recycle bin” the same traditional politicians or replace them with any of their family members.

Our inability to choose the right leaders is clearly one of the factors preventing us from reaching our full socio-political and economic potential as a nation.

We know that the government plays the most essential role in leading all efforts to make this country progressive. We need the best leaders if  we really want to become a “developed nation.”  It  is our responsibility as citizens to select the best  ones to hold the reins of government. Unfortunately, we keep failing to do so.

The funny thing is that after we put them into  power – the politicians who won because they have the money to buy votes, celebrities-turned-politicians who are inexperienced and incompetent, and “recycled politicians”  and the members of their political dynasties – we expect them to perform well. After every election, we expect a better-performing government.

And why would we expect a different government – a more effective one – when we know that we keep electing the same politicians or use the same old rotten standards when choosing new leaders?

Let us revisit  Albert Einstein’s definition of  insanity – “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

But assuming that one day we restore our sanity and finally we refuse to sell our votes – finally  we learn to elect into office the most deserving and most qualified among candidates – would the wheels of national development start rolling?

Not quite yet!

There’s one more problem, a problem more serious than our failure to vote wisely and conscientiously. The more serious problem of Filipinos, as mentioned in the first part of this series, is the mindset that that the leaders we elect are solely responsible in solving all of our society’s ills and nation’s problems.

We view our relationship with the state at the vantage point of “self-entitlement.” We think that it is the duty of our leaders to give us “this and that.” We say that the government should do “this and that” for us. See, we expect too much from leaders whom we don’t even choose using the best and most appropriate standards.

Is it the duty of the government to provide each citizen with food, clothes, and shelter?

Of course not!

What the government does, generally speaking, is to formulate, implement, and enforce the laws of the land, to build infrastructure, to ensure peace and order, and to create economic and other opportunities that would help its citizens enjoy the conveniences of life and have the best chance to get good education and find  or create means of livelihood.

It is also not the duty of the government to provide everybody a job?

One of the functions of the government is to create an environment that would promote economic growth. They have to make sure that businessmen would be encouraged to invest and initiate  businesses activities thus creating job opportunities. But jobs are not given in a silver platter. We have to search for job openings and apply and make sure that we have the required qualifications for the jobs we want. Getting ourselves ready for employment is a personal responsibility. The government will not deliver to our doorsteps the jobs that we want.

The government itself is also an employer but it cannot possibly provide each citizen with a job. It is also impossible for the private sector to employ everybody. That’s just the reality. Harsh it may be.  Those  who won’t  get employed, or do not want to work for others because they have better plans for themselves, could perhaps succeed as entrepreneurs.

Not everybody would get a college degree. Not everybody is trained and destined to be in a workplace – either in the corporate world or in the academe. Some of us will be factory workers, sales clerks, farmers,  fishermen, plumbers, drivers, gardeners, or what-have-you. It doesn’t matter whatever jobs we have for as long as they are decent and they allow us to earn a living honestly.

Don’t reason out that you came from a poor family and your parents could not send you to school to get a good education and have a better chance for a better life.

This is just how many of us Filipinos are. When we don’t  succeed in life, when things don’t turn the way we expect them to, when we are not doing well in the different areas of our personal lives, we are always ready to check our “blame list” to find somebody or something to put the blame on. And our favorite whipping boy – the government. When we are done accusing our leaders for  not doing their job well causing us to become losers, we next vent our ire on our parents saying that they did not work hard enough to ensure that we live a good life when we become adults.

We need to throw away that “blame list” for whether we like it or not we are personally responsible and accountable for our success and failure. There comes a time in our lives when we should become be self-sufficient, a time when we, not the government nor our parents,  decide for ourselves and take full control of our destiny.

We Filipinos need to realize that unless we recognize our faults and change there’s no way our country becomes progressive and “developed.” We will  never gain the respect of the community of nations  if we remain the way that we are now.

Something was said by John F. Kennedy  that we should reflect upon – “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

We Filipinos ought to realize that there are two requirements for a country to become progressive and developed – good government and cooperative citizenry. Remove one and a country is doomed. The citizens and their leaders need to work harmoniously towards achieving national goals. There’s no other way. Both of them need to work hard. They have to work hand in hand. The one thing we should bear in mind is we have control over who would lead us, of who will be holding the reins of government. So, if we fail to choose the right people to man the executive and legislative branches of our government, then don’t expect our country to do better… to be better.

What We Filipinos Ought To Realize (3)

(3rd of 4 parts)

Part 1

Part 2

We keep on criticizing the political dynasties in our country. But haven’t we Filipinos realized that we are so guilty of creating them? Yes, we have to admit it. We allowed the same politicians and their family members to lord it over in the Philippine political landscape for God knows how long. We made our country look like a de facto monarchy ruled by political kings and queens… their princes and princesses.

When  a politician, let’s say a mayor, could no longer run for re-election due to term limits, what would the honorable gentleman do? Turn his back on politics? Of course not! Power is so addicting. So many of those who experienced being at the helm of either local or national politics (and enjoyed the benefits, including those “passed under the table”) would not just quit politics nor pass the torch to another person.

So, what would happen?

His wife would run for the position he previously held. Then that politician would run for another post –  as governor perhaps. Most of the time, Filipino voters would allow them to win and usually  they would be able to mesmerize (or buy) the voters  to luckily get re-elected until they reach their term limits. Would it be the end? Would their thirst for power (and the so-called “benefits”) be finally satiated?

HELL NO!

The couple would ask their son or daughter (or a grandson – or a granddaughter – or an in-law) to run for the positions they would vacate. The shocking thing (and you might not believe it), there are times that siblings, or even husbands and wives, would not give way to the other and so members of the same family would slug it out in the political arena. Anyway, this is not about family members squabbling in the political arena – this is about the political dynasty their families created.

Let’s continue then.

Let’s go back to the mother who just reached her term limit as mayor. Would she go back to being a full-time mother and wife? You were born only yesterday if you don’t know the answer to that question. Yes – she would run for the post vacated by the husband-politician. The husband would then aim for  a higher position  – run either as congressman or even senator. In case all family members win then for years that the power will change hands within the same family. The son (or daughter) is a mayor, the mother a governor, and the father either as congressman or senator. When term limits are reached then they will just run for the position that a family member would vacate. Some siblings, and even in-laws, in the family are also occupying minor positions in the geographical units where they reside.

Did that family create their political dynasty? No! We ourselves did it. We Filipinos created the political dynasties in the Philippines.

And how did (have) these members of a few beholden families whom we allowed (are allowing) to exclusively hold the reins of our government – local to national – perform (been performing)?

You are either blind or dumb if you don’t know the answer to that question.

You got fooled if you think they keep pursuing positions in government in the name of “public service.”

You are naive if you believe that what drives them to stay in power is they love you, they want to serve you, and they want to help you have a better life.

How many of the available positions in the Philippine government, local and national, are held by the same families who have been the gods and goddesses of Philippine politics since time immemorial? Most of them are offspring of the peninsulares who survived  “America’s power grab” at the turn of the 20th century. They decided to stay in the country and reap the dividends for doing so. And it’s not only the politics that they dominate. With the enormous fortune they inherited from their Spanish parents/grandparents (which the Americans allowed them to keep), they also control the country’s economy. That’s why  I would sometimes jokingly ask – “Did the Spanish rule really end?”

Only a few  pure-blooded Filipinos  and foreign expatriates of Chinese origin who became wealthy when the Americans took their turn to colonize the Philippines had the financial resources to challenge the Spanish mestizos for political supremacy in the Philippines, especially after the Americans granted the Filipinos their independence after the World War II. Some of them succeeded and when they experienced how intoxicating power is, they (and their offsprings)  kept running and we kept electing them as if nobody else were qualified.

It is no longer surprising to know that politicians occupying national positions have one, or two family members and in-laws occupying seats in the local government.

Here is a question – “When would having the same people from the same families passing the reins of leadership to each other in both the national and local governments after elections end?”

That’s up to the Filipino voters.

So, we should not wonder why we as a nation could barely move the needle on socio-political stability and economic progress.

Socio-political stability and economic progress are the most important metrics that we ought to use when evaluating the performance of these leaders who are members of the few families whom we allowed (let me say this again) to lord it over in the political arena. We keep electing them then keep our fingers crossed that they will deliver.

According to Albert Einstein, “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Why in the world do we expect a better-performing government when we keep electing the same politicians from the same families? Are we insane?

%d bloggers like this: