PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONFIRST GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTSA royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5
PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONFIRST GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTSA royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5
PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONFIRST GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTSA royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5
FIRST GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTSA royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5
FIRST GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTS
A royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5
A royal order of November 3, 18391prescribed that a committee be specially appointed to draft a set of regulations for the schools of the Philippines.2The creation of this commission or board was delayed until 1855, being appointed by Governor Manuel Crespo, February 7, of that year. The re-admission into the archipelago of the Jesuits on March 21, 1852, had given a new impulse to the teaching of Spanish in the schools, that organization always having been greatly inclined to the teaching of that language.3The instructions given to the commission appointed by Crespo, were as follows:
“1. To draft regulations establishing and making uniform the teaching in the schools; with expression of what is to be taught in schools of both sexes, paying especial attention in their measures to the encouragement of the Castilian language.
“2. To determine the number of men and women teachers who are to be appointed, this need to be regulated by the number of tributes of each village.
“3. To report on the advisability of establishing a school for teachers in this city, without neglecting at the same time to state whatever is of service for it, and appears advisable for the end and object to which the expediency of this matter is directed.
“The commission was also recommended ‘to draft a plan and project for the establishment of a normal school in the city of Manila, from which teachers instructed and suitable for teaching in the provinces might graduate.’”
The report of this commission, March 7, 1861, shows but few meetings and but little accomplished, since its creation, until the year 1860. In the last months of that year and the first of 1861 their deliberations began to take form and were completed. Already on August 10, 1860, Governor Solano had commissioned an official of the secretary’s office to draft a project for reform along similar lines to the one which the commission was to draft. He completed that draft on the twenty-first of the same month, and his results may have spurred on the commission to finish its work. The fundamental points given to the above-mentioned official are as follows:
“1. Establishment in Manila of a normal school, as a seminary for teachers.
“2. That the pupils of such school, who are candidatesfor teachers, proceed from the various provinces in the proportion of one to each 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, their expenses to be paid from the local funds.
“3. That in the normal teaching, the studies with application to industry and the arts predominate.
“4. That the certificate shall not be issued to any pupil at the end of his course, unless he can write and speak Castilian fluently.
“5. Regulation of schools in the villages, all of them to be supplied with well-endowed pupils from the normal school.
“6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment.
“7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests.
“8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils.”
Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José FernandezCuevas to draw up a project for educational reform.
The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863,4with its attendant regulations (q.v.,post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials.
In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with anattendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147–151.)
Barrantes’s conclusions (pp. 166–168) are interesting. Among them are the following:
“We believe that we have demonstrated that the backwardness of primary instruction in Filipinas is purely relative, and cannot be imputed to the country or to any class, and much less to the ecclesiastical corporations, but to the spirit and letter of the laws of Indias and the royal decrees, which did not succeed in giving legal life in that colony to a service which did not exist, or was not at that time understood, in the mother-country.
“We have demonstrated that before 1865, primary instruction, properly so-called, was a vain shadow in the archipelago, since all the duties, all the administrative responsibilities of the department weighed upon public officials incompatible in purity with those duties and responsibilities; upon public officials, who, not being administrative, could and ought to drive out that imposition; upon public officials to whom no element or aid was given, while they were loaded with a leonine contract of an absurd and inconceivable character. And we have demonstrated this with the proof that the true responsibilities, in spite of the express text of the law, have not been exacted, because it was impossible to exact them or even the administrative public officials subject to them.
“We have demonstrated that this confusion ofprinciples could and ought to engender a struggle between classes in the eighteenth century, prejudicial at the bottom to primary instruction, whenever, in order to unburden itself mutually of unjust responsibilities, the administrative element threw the responsibilities upon the ecclesiastical element, accusing it of being hostile to the teaching of Castilian; and this element not being able, in its turn, to investigate the accusation, acted in such wise that it appeared to accept it.”
There are not schools in almost every village, and the identification of the Filipinos with the Spaniards has not progressed so far as has been declared, especially in the matter of intelligence; and “it is not certain that the condition of the institutions of teaching authorizes one to believe the Filipinos capable of making use of political rights so grave and so dangerous as the electoral right, in the form that they ask.”5