It is the results of the pre-American education that allows the following to be said: “The party which follows the intellectual leadership of Leon Guerrero (director of El Renacimiento) is quietly resisting what they call the ‘Anglo-Saxonization’ of their people through the schools. These men are really Spanish at heart (the older, mostly so in blood), and they have a Spanish-Latin feeling of hostility to the very name of ‘Anglo-Saxon.’ They prefer Latin education and educational methods, and Latin molds of civilization. Where they go astray is in their assumption, entirely gratuitous, that they really represent the Filipino people and Filipino ways of thought, desires and aspirations which are to be ‘squelched’ by this new campaign of instruction in English. Now, superficially, there are little evidences to corroborate this view, as would be inevitable, as the results of three centuries of tutelage according to Spanish models. But the man who looks beneath the surface sees at once that the Filipinos are not ‘Latins’ and were not ‘Latinized,’ and that these intellectual Latins, floating at the top of Filipino society are as mistaken as can be in assuming that they are representative of their people. The truth is, the Filipinos, in the mass, are, as regards the purposes of any real education, virgin material to work upon. Not only has their national and social life not been cast over in Latin molds, but Spanish influence was just sufficient, added to their undeveloped state at the time of the conquest, so that there are no ‘Filipino molds’ of civilization. They are really just ready to be worked upon, and whatever fundamental elements of ‘Filipino nationality’ there are latent, whatever inherent or acquired social traits properly constituting a ‘Filipino soul,’ will come to the front with this new opportunity.”[1]
It is impossible to give a comprehensive résumé of American efforts toward the education of the Filipinos. The captious critic will emphasize the mistakes which have been made and which will be made in the future, and it is yet perhaps too early to make a pronounced statement as to the results; but this much may be said, and in no spirit of American self-congratulation, namely, that the Filipino is at present enjoying the greatest opportunity that has ever been offered to him to acquire an education. The chief problem of the Philippines has well been said to be that of education.[2] Chief among future developments must be industrial education, which will not only train rightly the great dexterity of the Filipino, but also teach him the dignity of work with the hands, whatever his rank or station, and thus help to fit him for, and hasten the time when he shall enjoy greater self-government than he enjoys at present.
Below we give the direct available sources for a study of American education in the Philippines, from which the student may be able to study the question in its many phases. It is to be noted that a study of the present-day education in the islands must always be made hand-in-hand with that of the past. As might be expected, the majority of such sources are government documents.
Public Laws and Resolutions passed by the United States Philippine Commission (published by authority of the U. S. Philippine Commission, Manila). The various volumes of these laws contain the following acts concerned with education (number of act and date alone being given).
1900—3, Sept. 12; 4, Sept. 12; 11, Oct. 3; 15, Oct. 10; 32, Oct. 24. 1901—69, Jan. 5 (accompanied later in vol. by arguments of Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera and others against the rector of the university of Santo Tomás, and the Roman Catholic Church, in regard to the college of San José; and appearing also in Senate doc., no. 190, 56th Congress, 2d session); 74, Jan. 21; 93, Mar. 4; 97, Mar. 9; 110, Mar. 30; 129, May 16; 156, July 1; 163, July 13; 180, July 24; 201, Aug. 13; 222, Sept. 6; 228, Sept. 7; 239, Sept. 25; 248, Oct. 2; 264, Oct. 14; 285, Oct. 29; 291, Nov. 2; 311, Dec. 4. 1902—330, Jan. 9; 339, Jan. 28; 373, Mar. 7; 407, May 24; 415, June 9; 446, Aug. 15; 453, Oct. 8; 490, Oct. 27; 512, Nov. 10; 514, Nov. 11; 524, Nov. 18; 532, Nov. 24; 563, Dec. 22; 565, Dec. 22. 1903—600, Jan. 27; 661, Mar. 5; 672, Mar. 7; 682, Mar. 14; 686, Mar. 17; 734, April 8; 744, April 8; 795, July 23; 807, July 27; 810, July 30; 832, Aug. 12; 837, Aug. 24; 846, Aug. 24; 854, Aug. 26; 858, Aug. 27; 880, Sept. 10; 904, Sept. 25; 917, Oct. 1; 919, Oct. 2; 997, Nov. 17; 1018, Dec. 2. 1904—1048, Feb. 6; 1049, Feb. 11; 1057, Feb. 20; 1085, Mar. 10; 1133, Apr. 28; 1175, June 2; 1188, June 29; 1199, July 19; 1216, Aug. 17; 1225, Aug. 31; 1231, Oct. 14; 1251, Nov. 25; 1275, Dec. 6. 1905—Jan. 12.
Of these the most important is act no. 74 (and its various amendments), establishing a Department of Public Instruction in the Philippines, and appropriating $40,000 for the organization and maintenance of a normal and trade school in Manila, and $15,000 for the organization and maintenance of an agricultural school in the island of Negros, for the year 1901. Many of the acts are appropriations for various purposes. In addition to the above, acts touching archives and laboratories, as well as various other matters, may be considered as having educational value.
Reports of the Philippine Commission (Washington). Of chief value in this publication are the annual reports of the Secretary of Public Instruction, such reports beginning for the year 1902. It is to be noted that these reports contain the following (we cite from the Commission report for 1905, just issued): General report of the secretary of Public Instruction; report of the superintendent of Education; report of the chief of the Bureau of Architecture and Construction of Public Buildings; report of the Public Printer; report of the Bureau of Archives, Patents, Copyrights, etc.; report of the acting librarian of the American circulating Library; report of the editor of the Official Gazette. Special references in the various reports are as follows:
1900—i, pp. 17–42; 1901—i, pp. 133–148, ii, pp. 511–575 (appendix FF containing Fred W. Atkinson’s report); 1902—first annual report of the Secretary of Public Instruction, year ending Oct. 15, 1902, ii, pp. 865–1049; 1903—second annual report of the Secretary of Public Instruction, iii, pp. 667–985; 1900–1903—containing various general reports for those years, and which occur in the preceding volumes, pp. 121–129, 257–272, 399–434, and 685–721; 1904—third annual report, etc., iii, pp. 811–971; 1905—fourth annual report, etc., ending June 30, 1905, iv, pp. 369–652.