Read Part 1: History in basic education

(Conclusion)

The twin dangers of any social studies textbook?to stereotype and to mythologize?are present in the elementary school learning materials. Since the civics subjects are not grounded in our history, there is no parameter or safeguard against these dangers. Rather than learn to deploy facts in order to arrive at a reasoned interpretation of our past and our collective identity, our children are taught, simply, to memorize what the textbooks say we Filipinos are.

Overall, with regard to curricular and textbook content, we find that:

1. There is an overwhelming emphasis on civics at the expense of Philippine history.

2. The 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.

4. Philippine history, where taught, is approached from a limited, at times biased perspective that has the effect of sanitizing our past or presenting an incomplete picture of it.

As for the competencies, we find that:

1. Training in 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 as well as the use and analysis of primary sources are not developed.

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.

In light of these findings, we recommend the following:

1. Apply History as the core subject of Social Studies and incorporate civics, geography and other social science concepts. History applies critical thinking and writing competencies that enable one to exercise citizenship intelligently and meaningfully.
2. Devise history-based content standards and historical competence standards. The current curriculum combines content and competencies in such broad, general statements that it fails to address the demands of each. To give both content and competencies the attention each deserves [we should first] separate content from competencies and work out each in keeping with the accepted standards of the discipline. [We then juxtapose] content and competencies and pinpoint the specific historical competencies to be developed when discussing a historical period or topic.

3. Chart the content and competence standards in the curriculum consistently from first grade to fourth year high school. At present learning competencies at the elementary and secondary levels are formulated separately. Higher year levels cannot build upon the preceding years because of this disjointed approach to curriculum making. We also recommend that learning outcomes be described in terms of standards of achievement in place of the generally affective measures currently in use (e.g., ?pride in ?,? ?value of ?,? ?recognition of??).

4. Simplify the textbook review procedure and create a two-tiered review process to weed out textbooks with grave errors and biases, and then to check compliance with content and competence standards.

On the whole the education department?s screening instruments are geared more toward compliance with the prescribed competencies (which we question) and with pedagogical concerns than with content and cognitive competencies. The things that count to us?critical thinking, major errors and biases?count little to education officials.

5. ?Open up? the textbook with primary sources. Classroom learning can be strengthened by using excerpts of primary sources to correct inaccurate data in the textbook, provide more information, offer a different point of view or another account of an event.

6. Strengthen the disciplinal content of teacher training while maintaining the importance of pedagogical knowledge. The choice is not one or the other, but that teachers are trained in both.

7. Hold regular discussions among academic historians, Department of Education curriculum specialists, and elementary and high school Social Studies teachers in order to improve the curriculum and set standards. Far from being a single thread of learning, the education pipeline at present suffers from major disjunctions that result in poor preparation for the next level of learning. The conversations about history that we propose can help address these gaps.

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. This vast wealth is ours to take, not to devalue or to dismiss as impracticable. To partake of this wealth, we must train our young to question, to think critically and arrive at reasoned conclusions, and not be swayed by misleading premises or false promises, or biases that have no place in any community. The school system is the training ground of our nation?s children and our history makes an excellent teacher.

(The above are excerpts from the UP History Department?s Policy Paper on the Social Studies Curriculum and Textbooks. Dr. Maria Serena Diokno is a professor of History at the University of the Philippines Diliman, and project leader of the UP History Department textbooks review team whose members are Dr. Mercedes Planta, Ruel Pagunsan, Jely Galang, Kristoffer Esquejo and Ariel Lopez. Not one is a textbook writer or contributor. The team wishes to acknowledge the support of Sephis, a South-South exchange program, and the SEASREP Foundation, its affiliate.)