Adrian Louis Siayngco

December 20, 2015

4th Year Philosopher Final Exam in
Philosophy of Education

My Philosophy of Education

In a world governed by economic and political structures, one cannot but

acknowledge how important education is. Nowadays, man cannot deny that without

proper education, his chances of fulfilling his goals in life is very low. In this regard,

many would say that education is everything. The reason for this is that education

empowers man against the tides of the present society. It helps man achieve his

dreams and be a good neighbour to everyone else. Unfortunately, education is not

accessible to everyone. But what is more saddening is the fact that many take for

granted their opportunity to be educated while others dream of learning how to

read and write.

My aim in this paper is to formulate and present my own philosophy of

education. I intend to achieve my aim by treating philosophy of education as an

ideology that seeks to address, what I think, are important issues of our time. After I

present my philosophy of education, I will present next my opinion regarding the

Angelicum system as formulated by Fr. Rogelio B. Alarcon, O.P. It is to be noted that

my assessment of the Angelicum system is not meant to offend its founder nor its

advocates. Hence, I ask the reader to take my assessment as a help rather than a

hindrance to the improvement of the Angelicum concept.

Before anything else, allow me to formulate my philosophy of education by

starting with man; for a philosophers view of man is essential to his own

subsequent ideas. My view of man goes with that of Thomas Hobbes concept, but

1
not to the extreme.1 Pardon me for this, but in my opinion, there is something

defective in man, an evil side perhaps. I am not convinced with what Jean-Jacques

Rousseau claims that man is inherently good. Nor am I convinced with what John

Locke claims that since man came is rational, he will do what is right. I see man as

having within him an evil nature. I say this because I have noticed how different

philosophers develop concepts which lead to a philosophy of fear, of domination, of

violence, and of power. In fact, Thomas Aquinas view on mans nature points to the

same direction. While most commentators would say that Aquinas sees man as

someone good, he also acknowledges that man has this tendency for evil. Hence,

Aquinas says that man needs virtues.2

Like Aquinas, some philosophers also share with my view that there is evil in

man. An example is Plato who formulated the dialogue of Glaucon in his work The

Republic.3 The story is about the ring of Gyges which makes a man invisible if worn.

Glaucon, in the dialogue, claims that if man is invisible, he will do all the things that

he wanted, including the evil ones. Thus, there is this part in man where evilness

dwells. The same goes with the philosopher Xunzi of ancient China. Xunzi believes

that an absolute power is needed by the government to subjugate its subjects. But

please, do not get me wrong. Again, I am not saying that man is totally evil. What

Im saying is that there is this tendency that man will do evil if left by himself. As a

1 Hobbes view on man is pessimistic. He says that man, by nature, is evil. His
reason for saying this lies in his discussion of the State of Nature, which I am trying
to avoid for practical purposes. For more details refer to: Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan, trans. Edwin Curley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publising, 1994), 74-75.

2 Chrisitian Jocson, Aquinas Notion of the Natural Law, (lecture, PDCIS, November
23, 2015).

3 Plato, Book X The Recompense of Life, in The Republic.

2
consequence, man indeed needs virtues to purify his nature. In this way, man will

be able to clearly point out the difference between right and wrong, between what

is moral and immoral, and between what is urgent and what is trivial. Hence, in

regard to the previous discussions, it is evident that my view on man is this: that he

needs virtues. With this view follows my philosophy of education which is centred on

values formation.

Personally, I understand education as that intangible good which a student

obtains from studying in an educational institution. This understanding, however, is

not merely confined in knowledge, as if education is only about attaining technical

knowledge. Dr. Florentino H. Hornedo, says that the task of education is eminently

moral.4 True enough, educations first priority is to help mankind on how to be moral

first than being an intellectual. For if education ranks brilliance over morality, there

is this danger of isolating the person being educated from the rest of the world. In

other words, brilliance might make us pursue more how we can manipulate nature

at the expense of disregarding the world as part of ourselves. Hence, the duty of

education is to enable man to find his fulfilment as a social being, to pass from

being merely a potentially fulfilled person into a truly fulfilled one. 5 Moreover, the

task of school is to help man acquire knowledge that the society may benefit from

the person. In the teaching of practical skills for example, education should not only

make a person skilled but also responsible in using the skills he possesses.

In regard to learning objectives, I say that the students involvement should

be limited. Here, I am not in agreement with the philosopher John Dewey, because
4 Florentino H. Hornedo, Christian Education: Becoming Person-For-Others, (Manila:
Sto. Tomas University Press, 1995), 7.

5 Hornedo, Christian Education: Becoming Person-For-Others, 7.

3
he is an advocate of educational subjectivism. 6 Dewey says that students must be

involved in setting objectives for their own learning. This recommendation is rooted

in his concept of the student or learner. He says that students are active organisms

which change and interact. This implies that students do not simply receive

passively but also interact in the process of learning. Hence, each individual works

according to his/her personal pace. For this reason, the learning objectives should

not only come from the teacher but must be based on the learners ability and

growth.7 However, the danger of what Dewey proposes lies in the relativism of

educational values and moral foundations it suggests. For if the children determine

their own learning objectives, it follows to say that they also determine the values

that suits them well. I say this is dangerous, because of the lack of guidance in such

an idea. Moreover, there is a danger in letting students decide their learning

objectives, especially those who are too young to be involved in determining their

own learning goals.

What I have in mind is to follow the guidance of the teachers in determining

learning objectives. My reason for this lies in the wisdom behind being guided by

teachers who have experienced and contemplated life more than one did. Hence I

say that students should be limited in determining learning objectives because

students, in the first place, need guidance. To concretize my point I cite the

guidance of the magisterium in regard to the teachings of the Catholic faith. Once in

my life, I asked myself: Why should I believe the authority of the magisterium when

in fact I can determine my own beliefs? The answer, which I realized later on, was

very simple: because the Church, which has existed hundreds of years before me,
6 Nel Noddings, Philosophy of Education (Colorado: Westview Press, 1995), 22.

7 Noddings, Philosophy of Education, 25.

4
knows better. In the same way, teachers should guide students because they know

better. This idea, of course, implies that teachers should lead lives which are true

consistent in practice and in words. Hence, teachers should first show how they

embody the values they teach their students.

Strange as it may seem, I propose a philosophy of education centred on

values formation, because I have observed how our world has succumbed to the

vanities offered by consumerism and capitalism. My proposal, then, goes in line with

the mission of the Catholic Church, that is, to uphold human values despite the tides

of the current trend centred on economics and politics. In his book, Dr. Hornedo

says, The mission that the Catholic Church entrusts to Catholic Universities holds a

cultural and religious meaning of importance because it concerns the very future of

humanity.8 Through promoting values in our educational systems, the message of

Christ, which is to promote love for God and for ones neighbours, is close to being

fulfilled.

An Evaluation of the Angelicum System

In my reading of the book about the Angelicum system of education, I could not help

but remember the philosophy of education of John Dewey. If I am not mistaken, I think Fr.

Alarcon founded the system using the framework of John Dewey. I say this because I have

observed that the five instructions given to the teachers while Angelicum was still beginning

to put up its foundations are in principle similar to that of what Dewey is talking about. What

captured my attention to relate the Angelicum system to Dewey lies with the very first

instruction which is worthy of quoting:

8 Hornedo, Christian Education: Becoming Person-For-Others, 217.

5
 The school will not use a graded structure. Grades one, two, three, etc.,
will be done away with. Instead, there will be levels of learning. The
difference here will be in the time limit. While a grade refers to a set of
skills programmed for learning with a span of time, lever refers to the
same set of skills to be acquired without time limit. As a student
completes one level of work, he goes right on to the next, regardless of
the time of the year.9

To better understand my point, allow me first to present in general the basic

principles of Deweys philosophy. John Dewey was born in 1859, the same year that Charles

Darwin published his Origin of Species. Deweys thinking was greatly influenced by Charles

Darwin.10 The evolutionary themes and metaphors captured the interest of Dewey. For this

reason, Dewey rejected the supernatural and firmly held on to the method of science. In

addition, Deweys philosophy about education was greatly influenced by Hegel, especially

Hegels dialectical method. It is notable that Deweys ideas on education were received by

two opposing parties. Some consider him as the saviour of American education, especially

those who welcome greater involvement of students in their own educational planning and

activity. The other party refer to him as worse than Hitler for infecting the schools with

epistemological and moral relativism. 11 Hence, Dewey has been revered, admired,

castigated, and ridiculed for his thinking.12

Basically, Deweys claim regarding philosophy of education is rooted in his view of

the student or learner. He says that students are active organisms which change and

interact. This implies that students do not simply receive passively but also interact

in the process of learning. Each individual works according to his/her personal pace.

For this reason, the learning objectives should not only come from the teacher but

9 Rogelio B. Alarcon, The Angelicum System (handout).

10 Noddings, Philosophy of Education, 23.

11 Noddings, Philosophy of Education, 22.

12 Mortimer Adler, Fusilier, Time, no. 59 (March 17, 1953): 77.

6
must be based on the learners ability and growth. 13 Here, Deweys point when he

claims that students should also be involved in deciding for their own education is

clear: It is the self who learns and therefore the self must also have a say, if not the

final say, regarding the learning objectives. 14

The Angelicum system practices what Dewey suggests. In fact, by merely

reading the handout regarding the principles followed by the Angelicum concept,

one may say that it is born out of the Deweyan principles. From what I have

understood in my reading, I see that the Angelicum system is running a child-

centered program. It recognizes the limits and weakness of each individual. Hence,

it allows for a leeway in determining learning objectives by its students. Moreover, it

acknowledges that there are those who are really gifted with brilliance while there

are those who are average in terms of learning. In addition, the system knows that

there are different factors which affect the progress of the childs growth. Hence,

the system allows the learners to be at home with their own pace and their style of

learning. What is more interesting in Angelicum is that it provides no grades to

students. There is only the self to compete with and no grades to compare with.

I understand that Angelicums interpretation of the concept of competition is

inherent in the schools affirmation of a childs individual growth. As a result,

competition in Angelicum lies between the learner and his lessons only. Angelicums

reason for this is that if the child follows his own rate and pace of learning, he never

experiences the hurt of defeat. Thus, there are no losers in the system, only

13 R. S. Peters, John Dewey Reconsidered (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1967), 68-69.

14 R. S. Peters, The Concept of Education (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1967), 43.

7
winners. For if a child accomplishes what he can the way he knows best and

whenever he is satisfied with his work, he is a winner.

In regard to my personal evaluation of the Angelicum system, I would like to

present my opinion by looking at the system as a parent. Hence, I ask: If I were a

parent, would I enrol my child to an institution which deviates from the traditional

way of education? My answer is a surprising no. I am sorry to say this, but I want

to be honest. I am not totally convinced with how the Angelicum system works. I

have a problem with the non-graded system, the lack of competition in the

academic field, the following of the personal pace and style of learning, and the

leeway given to the children to somehow determine their own learning objectives.

The way I see it, the traditional way of educating students as practiced by most of

the schools in the country is more than effective to produce well-educated

individuals.

What worries me in the Angelicum system is the lack of guidance from the

teachers to learn alongside the pace of others. I say this, because life outside the

walls of Angelicum is not the way it is as portrayed by the system. Life is a

competition; it is a race. If a student who studied in Angelicum for more than 10

years would experience life for the first time after graduating from the institution,

the person will surely experience the greatest surprise of his life. My point here is

very simple. The Angelicum system creates an illusionary world that one can be

successful in life by simply following his own pace and by disregarding others

eagerness to succeed. With this, I say that the Angelicum system is too utopian.

To better illustrate my point, allow me to ask this question of success which is

obviously trivial: In a world full of competition and rivalry, who will likely succeed

8
more, the eager and the experienced or the self-motivated and the amateur? Of

course, the answer is the former. Although I appreciate the intention of the

Angelicum system to recognize the uniqueness of the individual, I am not totally

convinced with the way it treats a person in terms of learning. Hence, if I were a

parent, expect that I would prioritize first the enrolment of my child to a traditional

school. Yes, grades arent everything, but thats only in Angelicum. In the real world,

grades and learning are everything.

Bibliography

Bautista, Ferdinand Philosophy of Education, (lectures, Angelicum College).

Gonzales, Enrico Cosmology, (lectures, Philippine Dominican Centre of

Institutional Studies).

Heyting, Freida, et. al. Methods in Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge,

2001.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Translated by Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing, 1994.

Hornedo, Florentino H. Christian Education: Becoming Person-For-Others. Manila:

Sto. Tomas University

Press, 1995.

Jocson, Christian. Aquinas Notion of the Natural Law, (lecture, Philippine

Dominican Centre of

Institutional Studies.

Moore, Terence W. Philosophy of Education: An Introduction. New York: Routledge

and Kegan Paul, 1982.

Mortimer Adler, Fusilier, Time, no. 59 (March 17, 1953): 77.

9
Noddings, Nel. Philosophy of Education. Colorado: Westview Press, 1995.

Peters, R. S. The Concept of Education. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.

---------------. John Dewey Reconsidered. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977.

Quinton, Anthony. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press: 1995.

10