I already heard about the issue concerning the Commission on Higher Education’s (Ched) “Reframed GEC” (General Education Curriculum) and the Department of Education’s (DepEd) “Strengthened SHS” (Senior High School). In “Reframed GEC,” the subjects Ethics, Understanding the Self, and Art Appreciation are removed. The contents of these subjects are merely integrated into the competency-based courses. What does this imply?
Competency-based courses are for the development of skills for productivity such as technical subjects. Competence in this area can be measured in assessments, such as NCII, NCIII, etc. Those GEC subjects are for the formation of man as a human being. Ethics is for developing moral character. Understanding the self is for developing “adult identity” in the different aspects of our being human. Art Appreciation is for developing aesthetics, “cultural sensibility, and love of humanity” (PAP).
When the latter are removed, logically the former remain. In this scenario, man in society is developed only in the aspect of his/her productivity (what he/she can produce, as if merely a cog in the machine). His/her humanity is left un-germinated, or, if it has germinated at all, it is left in its state of being a bonsai. (This is my initial touch of this serious subject matter rocking the very foundation of our educational system.)
One of the sectors of our society, the Philosophical Association of the Philippines (PAP), has raised its voice in response to this action by those people in Ched and the DepEd, the so-called framers of the curriculum, and, in effect, the framers of man in society through education. I tried to have a copy of PAP’s strongly written position concerning the so-called “Reframed GEC” and the so-called “Strengthened SHS.” After reading the article, I honestly became upset. I could sense the trajectory of this curriculum “reframing” to be towards what I would like to call, “The Mechanization of (Filipino) Man.”
This “reframing” of the curriculum— where Ethics, Understanding the Self, and Art Appreciation removed, thus, the humanity of man removed—seems to be going to the kind of society the Russian novelist, Eugene Zamiatin, describes in his classic novel, WE, where citizens were not individuals but he-numbers and she-numbers, and the English novelist, George Orwell, describes in his famous novel, 1984, where one of people’s characteristics is “brainwashed conformity,” which means they don’t have logic, ethics, or humanity, incapable of making critical reflections on the self, on society, and on God (supposing God would still be part of man’s life by then). It seems to me that this could be the possible scenario in this country in the future with this kind of educational system, with such “curriculum” framed by those who seem to be already “mechanized people” themselves. This “reframing” is but a mirror of themselves.
Man is not a machine, designed only to produce a certain kind of work. If man’s value is measured in what he/she can produce, then he/she is but merely a source of production. It appears that the term, “human capital,” in this kind of framework concerning man, indicates man merely as an “object of entrepreneur.” But man is also a being endowed by God with intellect, freedom, and volition. Thus, in accordance with God’s design, from this point of view, man needs also to be developed as a “human person.”
The 1987 Philippine constitution speaks of “total human liberation and development” (Art. II, Sec. 17). And the PAP says: “The soil of Philippine education will not take root in competencies alone.” In other words, it has to be holistic. In Pope John Paul II’s approach, holistic formation means: 1) human formation (foundational, such as moral character, civic virtue), 2) spiritual formation (such as religiosity), 3) intellectual formation, (theoretical and practical abilities, such as science and the arts), and 4) pastoral formation (service to community).
I think all philosophy students, enthusiasts, professors, and philosophers in this country need to act. I am thankful that PAP has raised its voice concerning this very serious matter. PAP has strongly refuted Ched’s and DepEd’s (shallow) “arguments,” from the vantage point of those provisions stipulated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution concerning general education. However, their arguments need also to be refuted philosophically.
