8 european education

European Education, vol. 44, no. 4 (Winter 2012–13), pp. 8–30.

© 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1056–4934 (print)/ISSN 1944–7086 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/EUE1056-4934440401

Erin P. Hardacker

The Impact of Spain’s 1863

Educational Decree on the Spread
of Philippine Public Schools and
Language Acquisition

The Educational Decree of 1863 was an effort by Spain to reform the Philip-
pine colonial education system. The Decree established a complete system
of education in the archipelago—it required two elementary schools in each
municipality (one for girls and one for boys), standardized the curriculum, and
established normal schools, thus making systematized education available
to the masses. In the nineteenth century, educational opportunities opened
to a segment of society previously kept under control by the religious orders
through a selective curriculum of rudimentary academics and a heavy dose
of catechism. The colonial logic was to create a cadre of clerks and officials
in service of the new, liberal colonial state, but the Educational Decree of
1863 had an impact that was the reverse of what Spain intended. The for-
mal system of education created in the Philippines under Spain, even when
unevenly implemented, provided Filipinos with the tools to function outside
of colonial rule.
The Educational Decree of 1863 was the last in a long line of royal decrees issued
by Spain pertaining to the education of Filipinos and it reflected the guidelines
for a liberal, secular state. Education was an essential component of the colonial
state’s primary aim in the archipelago: the spread of Catholicism. Most educational
decrees included a provision for Spanish-language instruction, which the metropole

Erin P. Hardacker is a doctoral student in Southeast Asian history and educational policy
studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, focusing on the history of educa-
tion. Her research interests include colonial education systems and policies, civic and
language education in American and colonial contexts, and the history of childhood.
Address for correspondence: hardacker@wisc.edu.

8
 winter 2012–13 9

viewed as the best medium for disseminating the one true religion. Until 1863
there were no laws governing public education for the masses—children received
an education commensurate with the wealth, status, and geographic location of
their families. The Educational Decree of 1863 outlined a system of mass public
education almost 350 years after Spain’s arrival in the Philippines. After an educa-
tion system determined largely by the religious orders and confined to a relatively
small percentage of the populace, how would the 1863 decree impact the public
education system and Philippine society more generally? This paper argues that the
Educational Decree of 1863 had a limited impact on the quality of the Philippine
public education system and those able to attend, though it did mark an important
shift from religious to state control over public education.
Spain initially had three central aims in colonizing the Philippines: the Christian-
ization of the masses, the hispanization of an elite class to aid in colonial admin-
istration, and the creation of obedient, loyal subjects of Spain.1 Education would
indoctrinate the natives to Christianity, spread the Spanish language, and foster the
inculcation of Spanish culture.2 In the nineteenth century, education would also help
Spain to train native clerks for the expansion and administrative rationalization of
the bureaucratic state.3 When religious missionaries first arrived in the Philippines
they began to spread Catholicism with zeal. As local governments were established
around concentrations of natives, friars built churches and organized schools where
religion, reading, writing, arithmetic, Spanish language, and church music were
taught.4 The Augustinians established the archipelago’s first parochial school in
1565 in Cebu.5 By the end of the sixteenth century, missionaries had established
some 1,000 Catholic schools.6
The religious orders were responsible for the foundation, support, maintenance,
and administration of schools throughout much of the Spanish regime.7 The ef-
forts of religious orders were continuously hindered by a lack of funds, teachers,
materials, and school buildings; poor communication; and the sheer size of their
task. Martin writes that as “time and circumstances permitted, the early mission-
aries spared no effort in providing primary instruction to the children. They gave
instruction in the Roman alphabet and numerals, and, for a time, in the Spanish
language. Later they switched to vernacular instruction as they believed the use of
the vernacular, instead of Spanish, would be more expeditious in the teaching and
learning process.”8 Aldana also notes that “Spanish missionaries gradually learned
the various Philippine dialects, which they found to be very helpful in their religious
and educational work.”9 Carson similarly finds that the friars, “burdened with many
other duties, found it easier to learn the local dialects, becoming in this way the
intermediaries between the officials and the populace, than to undertake the colos-
sal task of teaching the Castilian tongue to a whole generation.”10 Therefore local
dialects predominated in schools, where friars found them easier media in which
to teach and arguably children found them to be easier media in which to learn.
While education may have received much attention in the Philippines, it was
not necessarily the education those in the metropole envisioned for the colony.
10 european education

For example, Spanish language remained a neglected subject even though it was
continuously emphasized in royal decrees spanning the entire regime. Friars may
have neglected Spanish instruction in favor of local dialects as an expedient tool
for Christianization or as a means to block access to antireligious, Protestant, and
liberal materials.11 Ultimately this neglect by friars and the colonial state’s inabil-
ity to implement its educational decrees fully undermined the educational plans
Spain had for the archipelago and left Filipinos, especially in the late nineteenth
century, feeling disillusioned with the colonial education system, religious orders,
and Spanish rule.

Language teaching and educational developments prior to 1863

King Charles I, who oversaw the Spanish colonization of the Americas but was
troubled by reports depicting the brutal treatment of the indigenous populations,
issued the first royal decree pertaining to colonial education in 1550. He ordered
that Spanish be the language of instruction when teaching Christian doctrine to the
inhabitants of the nation’s overseas possessions. This decree reflected a long-held
belief that “the Christian religion, to retain its purity, had to be taught in Spanish.”12
In 1582 Bishop Domingo Salazar, then a missionary in the Philippines, proposed
a law that would establish two primary schools, one for boys and one for girls, in
every parish, which would be supported by encomenderos and parent fees.13 By
1634, as Spain’s power began to decline and parts of its empire broke away, a royal
decree was issued directing the archbishop and bishops to teach Filipinos Christian
doctrine and Spanish language. A decree issued in 1686 reasserted the sentiment
of 1634 by requiring prelates to order priests and friars to teach Christian doctrine
and other subjects in Spanish. These decrees had little impact in the archipelago,
far from the metropole’s reach. In 1770, 1772, 1774, and 1778, influenced by the
Enlightenment, “the kings of Spain issued royal decrees instructing the Spanish
authorities in the Philippines to organize public primary schools in the towns, but
these decrees were not enforced.”14
King Charles III issued a royal decree in 1782, during a time of extensive eco-
nomic and governmental reforms under the Bourbon administration (1700–1808),
calling for the establishment of schools in all areas of the archipelago in which
they had not yet been founded; parents should be urged—without violence or
compulsion—to send their children to school. The year 1794 saw the issuance
of a similar, albeit more direct, decree stating that school was to be free and
compulsory, Spanish the language of instruction, and fines imposed on teachers
who neglected their students’ attendance or spoke local dialects in school. Parish
priests remained school supervisors (and typically teachers), which no doubt af-
fected the implementation of this latest educational decree. In 1812 a new, liberal
constitution was adopted that established universal male suffrage, freedom of the
press, national sovereignty, and a constitutional monarchy. However, when King
Ferdinand VII returned to power in 1814, he suspended the liberal constitution. In
 winter 2012–13 11

part as a political backlash against the conservative policies after 1814, a decree
in 1815 called for the establishment of charity primary schools in convents and
nunneries. Children aged nine to twelve from poor families could attend these free
schools to receive food and clothing and lessons in Christian doctrine, manners,
and the three Rs.15 The Educational Plan of 1821 marked the second liberal period
in Spain, a culmination of ten years of ferment by Spanish émigrés ousted by the
government in 1814. It called for the creation of a university in every province
of the archipelago and a public school in every town and barrio with at least 100
inhabitants. The plan was abandoned with the defeat of the Liberals in 1823; there
were some who felt such a widespread education system might disrupt the peace-
ful conditions of the archipelago and foster detrimental liberal ideas and religious
sentiments. Spaniards also realized the costs involved in such a plan were more
than they could afford.16
There were myriad factors that made the implementation of the Spanish educa-
tional decrees nearly impossible. For instance, “the Council of the Indies was not
aware of existing conditions in the Philippines[;] teaching facilities were meager,
as funds supposedly set aside for education were also meager, or . . . nonexistent[;]
classrooms were few and limited in space, books were not available for every stu-
dent and funds were sorely lacking for teachers’ salaries and school supplies.”17
Throughout much of the Spanish regime, the Council of the Indies in Madrid,
“which made the laws for the colony until 1837, laid down a policy that inhabitants
should generally be taught reading and writing, Christian doctrine, and the Spanish
language.”18 The Council did not believe, as many friars did, that local dialects were
able to convey Christian doctrine. Only Spanish would suffice. A commonality
among these decrees was the necessity of teaching Spanish and the importance of
education in the Christianization and hispanization of the Philippines.19
Until 1863, no laws governed public education for the masses in the Philippines;
education was handled by the religious orders and was typically reserved for children
of Spaniards, mestizos, and the native elite.20 The quality of education varied by
religious order, with Jesuits typically the most effective educators.21 While there
was no uniform method of instruction, the religious orders had a common goal in
establishing schools: to create good Christians and law-abiding subjects of Spain. 22
Primary schools were usually ungraded and lacked a unified system of supervision,
administration, teaching methodology, and curriculum. The clergy often ignored
the royal decrees from Spain, especially those that emphasized Spanish as the
language of instruction. Some believed that Spanish could incite a peasant upris-
ing, others objected because of a lack of proper Spanish-language materials from
which to teach. In the end, the colonial government viewed most parochial schools
as meeting the requirements outlined in the educational decrees.
While schools received government subsidies, friars were in total control and
decided what children were taught. Though education varied by religious order,
it was common for the orders to disregard the laws mandating the use of Span-
ish.23 Zwaenepoel posits two compelling arguments for why friars ignored orders
12 european education

to teach Spanish to Filipinos: (1) teaching in local dialects helped friars to retain
their power within the areas in which they were stationed, which “enabled friars to
control their subordinates by acting as the vital link between the Spanish colonial
administration and the masses who did not know Spanish;” and (2) teaching lo-
cal dialects “made it possible for the Spanish authorities to forbid the circulation
in the provinces of Spanish papers and books which were inconvenient for the
Spanish authorities.”24 In both scenarios, the use of local dialects meant that friars
were able to retain a position of power by severing a Filipino’s link to the Spanish
administration and depriving him or her access to materials that featured “liberal”
ideas emanating from Europe. The restrictive language efforts of religious orders
obviously worked: after more than 300 years of Spanish rule, less than 5 percent
of Filipinos spoke Spanish.25
By the nineteenth century, it became apparent to officials in the metropole that
colonial education in the Philippines did not reflect the provisions outlined in the
previous decrees. The lack of uniformity and the poor conditions of Philippine
public education led to an 1839 royal decree calling for the creation of a com-
mission to review the education system and suggest means of improvement. This
decree was issued during a time of political upheaval in Spain, which pitted those
in favor of absolute monarchy, or Carlists, against liberal reformers, or Cristinos. It
was likely this political instability in Spain, as well as the high turnover and short
terms of Philippine governor-generals, that caused a delay in the enactment of the
1839 decree: the commission was not appointed until 1855, and it submitted its
report on 7 March 1861.26
Many of the recommendations featured in the 1861 report appeared in the
Educational Decree of 1863, whose purpose was to “broaden as much as possible
the teaching of the holy Catholic faith, of the language of the fatherland, and of
the elementary knowledge of life.”27 Blanco further defines the purposes of the
decree as increasing literacy, teaching Spanish, and eradicating “the errors and
superstitions conveyed by the long history of non-Western languages, traditions, and
dispositions.”28 Additional reasons behind the 1863 decree passage were pressure
from ilustrados “under the influence of liberalism who could not accept exclusive
clerical control in the important field of education,” the need for native officials
who could better communicate in Spanish with their superiors if the language was
more widely taught, and the “Spaniards’ belief that the Filipinos would be more
loyal to the Spanish crown if they would be educated and would speak the Spanish
language.”29 As with most of the earlier education-related decrees, the metropole
saw education in Spanish as a key tool in spreading civilization, Catholicism, and
fealty to Spain.
The Educational Decree of 1863 also reflected a bureaucratic shift occurring in
Spain and its colonies. The nineteenth century marked a new Spanish emphasis on
communications, road systems, mail service, taxes, administrative rationalization,
and bureaucratic expansion across the archipelago.30 Cruikshank writes that in
response to directives from Spain, during “the latter half of the nineteenth century
 winter 2012–13 13

Manila increased both the size and complexity of provincial administrations.” As

the scale and scope of provincial bureaucracy increased new positions were cre-
ated to “increase revenues, administer formal justice and ensure security.”31 A more
complex, modern bureaucratic structure required more administrative paperwork.
More paperwork required properly educated native clerks who could work within
the new expanded bureaucratic system. Anderson writes that with the administrative
rationalization and expansion of bureaucracy, the colonial state “needed armies of
clerks, who to be useful had to be bilingual, capable of mediating linguistically
between the metropolitan nation and the colonized peoples.”32 The expansion of
the colonial state required the expansion of the colonial education system, not only
to provide a cadre of native clerks for the expanded bureaucratic state, but also as
a reflection of the popular liberal belief that the attainment of Western knowledge
was important for all peoples, even the colonized.33 The Educational Decree of
1863 would meet both of these goals.

Modernizing colonial rule: The Educational Decree of 1863

Philippine scholar Benigno Aldana succinctly states, “Education in the Philippines

during the Spanish administration was for the classes, not for the masses, its objec-
tives being social refinement and distinction.”34 At least that was the official modus
operandi until 1863. The Educational Decree of 1863 proposed a public primary
education system under government supervision and control, a scheme for normal
schools, and curriculum guidelines. In a December 1863 letter to Queen Isabella II
accompanying the decree, colonial minister José de la Concha explained:
This project has in view the necessity of disseminating, as far as possible, in-
struction in the Holy Catholic faith, in the mother tongue, and in the elementary
branches of the knowledge of life, and in providing capable teachers for this
purpose, the lack of which is the principal cause of the present situation; . . . it
establishes a normal school. . . . It creates in all the towns of the Archipelago
schools of primary elementary instruction for boys and girls, making the atten-
dance of the children obligatory and providing for religious classes for adults.
. . . And as supplementary to the system established, it requires in the future,
after the expiration of a reasonable time, a knowledge of the Spanish language
as a necessary requisite for the discharge of public offices and the enjoyment of
certain advantages inherent thereto.35
In sum, the decree outlined the type, classification, and administration of schools;
the government supervision and inspection of schools; the training, qualifications,
and responsibilities of teachers; the use of Spanish; the courses offered either as
compulsory or optional subjects and the accompanying textbooks; the role of the
parish priest in the schools; and the separation of classes for boys and girls.36 A
secular Superior Commission of Primary (later Public) Instruction was formed
to oversee the establishment of the public school system and ensure systemwide
uniformity.
14 european education

The first major provision of the decree was the establishment of public primary
schools across the archipelago. The decree stated that there should be at least one
locally supported primary school for boys and another for girls in every town.37
Instruction was free to the poor and compulsory for all children aged seven to
twelve. Spanish would be the language of instruction, with schools offering adult
Spanish lessons on Sundays.38 Parents who failed to send their children to school
would be subject to government fines. School supplies such as books, paper, ink,
and pens were to be provided to students free of charge.39
Schools were to be inspected on three levels and the ultimate responsibility
for education shifted from the religious orders to the state. Parish priests would
act as local inspectors in the barrios and municipalities and be responsible for
the supervision of primary schools, suggesting reforms when needed. Provincial
governors would serve as provincial inspectors, establishing and maintaining
school uniformity across their municipalities and ensuring the level of instruction
met the required standards; they also suggested reforms. The top school inspector
was the governor-general, with aid from the new Superior Commission of Primary
Instruction: “The Superior Commission controlled all the local and provincial com-
missions, received their reports and introduced new systems and reforms. It settled
all difficulties regarding elementary education in the Islands.”40
Several incentives to attend school were included in the 1863 decree. The decree
outlined that anyone unable to speak, read, and write Spanish fifteen years after a
school’s establishment could not belong to the principalía. In addition, those able
to speak, read, and write Spanish thirty years after a school’s establishment would
be exempt from the personal service tax.41 As a final encouragement, the decree
stated that only those who could speak, read, and write Spanish by 1868 would be
eligible for salaried government posts.42 Teachers and students could be punished for
using local dialects instead of Spanish in the schools; school prizes were awarded
to students who excelled in Spanish.43
The decree provided for the establishment of a normal school in Manila to
train male teachers, operated by the Jesuits and funded by the Central Treasury.
The normal school became a reality two years later in 1865, with the first normal
course for women created in 1868 through the Municipal School of Manila under
the direction of the Spanish Sisters of Charity.44 The decree described the purpose
of a normal school as to “serve as a seminary for religious, obedient, and instructed
teachers” and it set qualifications for normal school students. Students must be
natives of the Spanish dominions, at least sixteen years old, in good health, and in
good standing in the towns in which they lived (certified by their parish priests).
In addition, prospective students had to take an entrance exam covering reading,
writing, Spanish language, and Christian doctrine.45
The normal school was a three-year program. Teacher candidates studied reli-
gion, morals, and sacred history; theory and the practice of reading; theory and the
practice of writing; Spanish language with exercises in analysis, composition, and
orthography; arithmetic; Spanish geography and history; geometry; physical and
 winter 2012–13 15

natural sciences; agriculture; rules of courtesy; vocal and organ music; and peda-
gogy.46 Candidates were also required to perform six months of student teaching.
The language of instruction was Spanish. Upon completion of training, candidates
took an oral and written exam and were rated “excellent,” “good,” or “fair.” This
rating determined their assignment and salary.47 The duties of teachers, once as-
signed to a school, were outlined in detail, including expectations, privileges, and
future opportunities. Teachers could expect a free dwelling and could keep the
school fees paid by wealthy students; they were exempt from the personal service
tax and eligible for a government pension. After five years of service, a teacher
could become a member of the principalía, and teachers with ten or more years of
service would be given priority for clerical posts.48
A uniform, standardized school curriculum was the final major provision of the
1863 decree. Boys’ primary education would include Christian doctrine, principles
of morality, and sacred history; reading, writing; Spanish language, grammar, and
orthography; arithmetic; Spanish geography and history; practical agriculture; rules
of courtesy; and music. Girls would learn the same curriculum, except needlework
would substitute for agriculture, Spanish geography, and history.49 The plan of study
was loosely divided into five elementary “grades.” Though the decree transferred
responsibility for public schools to the state, religion still formed the core of the
curriculum. The school day began with mass, students prayed before their mid-day
break, the afternoon session started with prayers, and Christian doctrine and ethics
comprised part of the afternoon’s lessons. At the end of the school day children
returned to church for prayers before being dismissed.50

Disappointing expectations: Implementation of the 1863

Educational Decree

As with previous educational decrees, many obstacles affected implementation

of the 1863 decree. First and foremost was a lack of funds, materials, qualified
teachers, and facilities.51 Also, many friars—who continued to comprise the bulk
of the teaching force—were hesitant to teach Spanish to the masses. Many still
believed catechism would be more expedient in the local dialects. Some also thought
Spanish-language knowledge among Filipinos could be used as a tool against
colonial rule. Robles asserts that given the “general apathy of the friars toward the
education of the Filipinos, not to mention specifically the attitude of many priests
toward the dissemination of the Spanish language, the program of public instruction
could proceed only very slowly toward its goals.”52 While the curriculum outlined
in the 1863 decree was promising, it was usually not followed. Javier and Mogol
write that as “a general rule the only thing the pupils learned were the rudiments of
reading and writing and Christian doctrine.”53 In addition, instruction quality was
typically deficient and schools remained ungraded; Spanish-language materials were
scarce. Osias claims that poor primary instruction in Philippine schools was “the
rule rather than the exception, especially in the provinces.”54 Though attendance was
16 european education

compulsory for children aged seven to twelve, the government lacked the means to
enforce this provision of the decree.55 In short, the educational decrees issued for
the archipelago, including the 1863 decree, were often impractical for the Philip-
pine context and created by officials unfamiliar with local conditions; therefore
many of the provisions of the 1863 educational decree “remained only on paper.”56
Observations from the 1903 American census concurred that the “entire plan of
public instruction lived in the minds of the Spanish legislators, but was never put
into practice.”57 The 1925 Monroe Commission similarly concluded that although
“in legal form a common school system existed [during the Spanish regime], little
was attempted; in the later years little was accomplished.”58
Most children living in sitios and barrios continued to have little access to
schools because they lived far from the new public institutions primarily located
in poblaciones.59 While the 1863 decree called for the establishment of schools in
every town with at least 5,000 inhabitants and every barrio with at least 500 inhabit-
ants, this “provision was never carried out for lack of funds and school facilities. At
most, only the ‘centro de población’ was provided with a school while the barrios
and sitios remained as they had been before.”60 Although “public-spirited citizens”
called for the establishment of barrio schools because the great distance between
barrios and towns prevented many children from attending, few barrio schools
were created. This dearth of barrio schools was not lost on Filipinos and the issue
would not be adequately addressed until the 1950s. Response to this unsatisfactory
development may have fueled anticolonial sentiments. The 1892 constitution of the
patriotic society La Liga Filipina “declared as one of its aims the encouragement
of popular education. Newspaper articles also voiced this sentiment, favoring the
establishment of barrio schools so that education would reach those who lived
in remote places, far from towns.”61 Phelan notes that “Philippine geographical
particularism . . . imposed considerable hardships on students, most of whom had
to travel long distances to attend classes.”62
In sum, a lack of qualified teachers, materials, financial resources; resistance of
some friars; and the distance of primary schools from sitios and barrios hindered
what the public school system outlined in the 1863 educational decree could
accomplish. A teacher shortage plagued the Philippines throughout the Spanish
regime. The government rarely had sufficient funds to support public education.
If there were funds, poor budgeting meant that public schools were left neglected.
Books and writing materials were always in short supply, as they often had to be
imported from Spain or Mexico. The introduction of the printing press alleviated
some of the strain since certain materials could be produced locally, but it was still
not enough to meet demand. Actual schoolhouses were uncommon, and classes
were often held on the ground floor of convents, in stables, or even in a municipal
prison. The freestanding public primary schools that did exist were usually badly
constructed and poorly supplied. Inadequate roads or a lack of roads hampered
transportation of supplies to schools and students’ ability to travel to schools.63
Many school-aged children did not attend public school because they had to help
 winter 2012–13 17

Table 1

Distribution of Philippine Public Schools in 1877

Schools Students

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Luzon 599 244 44,476 28,805

Adjacent islands 499 28 3,394 1,970
Visayan Islands 302 284 43,281 41,193
Mindanao 66 36 7,070 6,384
Total 1,016 592 98,761 78,352

Sources: Manual del Viajero (1877); also cited in José Montero y Vidal, El Archipiélago
Filipino (Madrid, 1886) and Eliodoro G. Robles, The Philippines in the Nineteenth Cen-
tury (Quezon City: Malaya Books, 1969).

support their families through agricultural work or care for younger siblings while
others worked. Even with the best intentions, the realities of the Philippine context
made it difficult for anyone to fully implement the provisions of the 1863 decree.
Mainly due to a lack of trained teachers, facilities, and supplies, up until the late
nineteenth century public primary schools provided little beyond the bare rudiments
of reading, writing, and religion.64
Scholars tend to agree that Spanish colonial government statistics on public
schools and enrollment in the Philippines are often unreliable and must be viewed
cautiously.65 Nonetheless, it is clear that the number—if not the quality—of schools
established in the archipelago grew at a fairly regular rate by the nineteenth century.
Prior to the 1863 decree, there were about 3,000 parochial and private schools in
the archipelago, though few public schools for the masses. Manila, the center of
colonial administration, had only one public primary school in 1836 attended by 80
students.66 In 1866 a civil government circular asked provincial and district chiefs
to report the number of public schools in their respective areas. The self-reported
results revealed 640 schools in 900 pueblos; enrollment was less than 150,000. With
a population estimated at 4,411,261, and according to the guidelines of the 1863
decree, there should have been approximately 840 schools each for boys and girls
across the archipelago.67 The Manual del Viajero reported that in 1877 there were
1,608 public primary schools attended by 177,113 students (see Table 1).68
Table 1 demonstrates that at least quantitatively, public schools were becoming
more widespread though it can be argued that from a quality standpoint these new
schools did not measure up to the guidelines of the 1863 decree (see literacy statis-
tics below). Nine years later, in 1886, another 545 public schools were established,
bringing the total to 2,133 with enrollment close to 200,000.69 By 1892, 2,153
public schools existed in the Philippines with enrollment just over 200,000.70 The
18 european education

Guía oficial de las Islas Filipinas para 1898 cited that more than 200,000 children
attended 2,167 public primary schools across the archipelago in that year.71 The
1900 Report of the Philippine Commission found that there were 1,914 teachers
(991 male and 923 female) in the archipelago at the end of the nineteenth century;
according to the 1863 educational decree, which required a male and female teacher
for every town, there should have been 2,684 teachers.72 Thus the ratio of teachers
to students in 1900 was 1 to 3,500.73 In contrast, at the time of the 1903 Census,
there were 5,925 teachers in the archipelago, an average of two teachers per school
with a teacher-to-student ratio of 1 to 60. Total enrollment topped 356,385 in 1903,
with the majority (266,362) attending the 2,858 public primary schools.74
While the Philippines continued to suffer from a teacher shortage, the number
of schools and access to education (even if of limited quality) increased dramati-
cally following the 1863 decree. The 1903 Census came to a similar conclusion,
stating that in light of the number of public schools and laws regulating them, there
was no doubt that “primary instruction in the Philippines was advancing along a
prosperous and flourishing path . . . and that popular education . . . had attained
the state which it usually reaches in a progressive and civilized country.” However,
the census report continued, “this [progress] was superficial only, at the bottom
everything was contradictory to these laws and provisions, which were nothing
but a veneer, a veil which covered the greatest of governmental fictions.”75 This
statement likely reflected the anti-Spanish sentiment prevalent in the United States
surrounding the Spanish-American War. Anti-Spanish rhetoric was widely utilized
by the press and government officials first to justify military action against Spain
in the 1890s and later to support American presence in the Philippines under the
guise of aiding the “victims” of the Spanish regime.76

Impact of the 1863 educational decree

The Educational Decree of 1863 had an uneven—and arguably negligible—impact

on the educational experiences of the masses and was best implemented in Manila.
Most children of Philippine elites, mestizos, and Spanish colonial officials were also
little impacted by the decree as they continued to attend private schools, which were
not covered under the 1863 decree and were typically well staffed and supplied.
Instead of government statistics, Robles relies on an 1871 manuscript that “points
to the falsity of reports to the government on the number of school children, and
laments the ‘infinite’ number of towns without schools. The writer, Agustin de la
Cavada, states that of the schools in existence (except for those in Manila), there
was hardly any that could measure up to standards.”77 De la Cavada conducted civil
inquiries to chart the archipelago’s educational progress from 1826 to 1868. Ac-
cording to him, in 1868 there were only 78 public primary boys’ schools enrolling
5,578 and 64 public primary girls’ schools enrolling 1,608 (in contrast to the 640
schools self-reported in 1866, above). In addition, de la Cavada found that of those
students, only 45 boys and 3 girls could speak Spanish. The Memoria General
 winter 2012–13 19

published in 1872 found similarly discouraging literacy figures. While it should

be noted that only Luzon and the Visayas were represented, the data still present
sobering literacy statistics for schoolchildren. In 1872, there were almost 125,000
students enrolled in public primary schools, but only 30 percent of them could read.
In those schools, 48 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls could neither read nor
write and less than 1 percent could speak Spanish.78
Equally disturbing are the literacy statistics for the entire population of these
two provinces. While more students were learning to read and write in the growing
number of public primary schools, a staggering percentage of Filipinos remained
illiterate. Only 0.7 percent of the 1,738,279 Filipinos—in school and out of school—
spoke Spanish by 1872, after 350 years of Spanish rule. At the same time, 78 percent
of all males and 74 percent of all females could neither read nor write.*
Though there were 2,167 public primary schools across the archipelago when
the Americans arrived, they reported in 1903 that the entire school system was
“disorganized; the buildings and equipment missing, defective, or useless, and the
barest nucleus of an efficient teaching force present.”79 The 1903 Census reported
a total population of 7,635,426 of which 44.5 percent of people aged ten years or
older could read and write in some language; 24.3 percent could read but not write.
These figures are a marked improvement from the 1872 partial literacy statistics
cited above (69 percent literacy in 1903 vs. 25 percent literacy in 1872). During the
military occupation alone, Americans established an additional 1,000 schools and
immediately set about implementing an American-style education system with new
school buildings, American textbooks, American teachers (who would train a new
cadre of Filipino teachers), and English as the language of instruction.80 In the span
of three years the percentage of Filipinos that could use English (approximately
11 percent) surpassed the percentage that could use Spanish after more than 300
years of occupation.81
These seemingly impressive American statistics do not necessarily reflect a
significant improvement over the educational gains made under Spanish rule. In
1925 the Monroe Commission published a survey of the Philippine school system
in which it critically evaluated America’s achievements in the archipelago. During
the first quarter-century of American occupation, the number of public primary
schools in the Philippines more than tripled and the number of students enrolled
increased from 160,000 to 1,200,000. In addition, the number of teachers in these
schools rose from 4,000 to 27,000.**
However, these increases in quantity—school buildings, students, and teachers—
were not matched with increases in quality, and the American colonial government
faced many of the same issues and obstacles as the Spanish colonial government
in administering its schools. Language remained a serious issue in the schools. A

*Memoria General, Junta General de Estadistica de las Yslas Filipinas (1872); also
cited in Robles (1969).
**Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands (1925); figures rounded.
20 european education

debate raged not only on what should be the language of instruction, but also on
the problem of effectively teaching a foreign language to an entire country, most
of whom attended school for only two or three years.82 The Monroe Commission
reported that tests on adult literacy five years after leaving school demonstrated
those with only “three years of schooling retained almost nothing after five years;
those with four years showed definitely more reading ability; and those with five
years of attainment in school had a real command of reading skill.”83 Unfortunately,
most students remained in school fewer than three years and thus the majority “of
the children leaving school do not have sufficient command of English to make it of
practical value to them in adult life.”84 It seemed, then, that the United States made
few improvements in foreign-language literacy from the gains made by Spain. In
addition, just as with Spain, a lack of adequately trained teachers plagued the Ameri-
can colonial education system and hampered educational gains in English literacy
and other reading-intensive academic subjects for many Filipino students.85
While the Monroe Commission reported that under Spain most schools were
private and not for the masses, it did not find the American-style mass public
education system in the Philippines to be automatically superior to the Spanish
system. The main issue for both colonial states was language. Learning a foreign
language can be difficult in itself. To require all school subjects be conducted in a
foreign language and then not provide instructors adequately trained to simultane-
ously teach children a foreign language presents an insurmountable task.86 This
was compounded by other factors, such as a lack of funding for trained teachers
and proper materials and the reality that children often did not attend school long
enough to gain a command of the foreign language, let alone any of the other
subjects taught in that foreign language (besides those subjects that required few
words, such as arithmetic).87 The Monroe Commission created a striking table
showing the “foreign-language handicap,” or achievement gap, that developed
between American and Filipino students taught in English. As academic subjects
required more reading in English, Filipino students began to lag. In arithmetic
computation, there was no difference, but in arithmetic reasoning that required
some sentence reading, Filipinos were 0.6 years behind Americans. In paragraph
reading, the gap was 2.5 years.*
Based on an achievement gap that widens as Filipino students are required to
increase their reading, it is no wonder that the Monroe Commission found such high
failure rates and a proliferation of overage children in Philippine primary schools.88
Under the American education system, it took Filipino children, on average, over
one year to advance to the next grade, with the time between grade promotions in-
creasing as the grade levels increased. The Commission reported that of one million
students in public schools, more than one-third repeated grades every year.89 When
considering these massive failures on the part of the American colonial education
system, the Spanish literacy statistics cited above do not seem so atypical.

*Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands (1925).

 winter 2012–13 21

Spain and the United States had their reasons for requiring Philippine schools
be conducted in a single language other than the local dialects, mostly to make
administration easier by providing a common language of communication. However,
both nations faced the same difficulties in successfully spreading a new foreign
language across the archipelago, which points to the larger issue of educating for
mass literacy in a foreign language. Until children reach school age, they spend their
lives immersed in their local dialect. Once of age, they attend school for a portion
of the day only to return home and become immersed in their local dialect again;
most children did not speak Spanish, or later English, at home. Combined with the
fact that the majority of (nonelite) children attended school for only a short period
of time with teachers ill prepared to instruct in the foreign-language curriculum,
and one has a recipe for public education failure. The “foreign-language handicap,”
as the Monroe Commission coined it, remained constant across time as Spain and
the United States attempted to impose their respective national languages on the
archipelago. Nonetheless, the fact remained that the Philippine public education
system under Spain was more rhetoric than reality, and mass primary education
only reached a fraction of the inhabitants.
The uneven impact of the colonial public education system in the Philippines
is best summarized by Phelan: “Given the isolation of the Filipinos from most
social contracts with the Spaniards, the slow growth of a Spanish-speaking mestizo
class, and the total absence of any socioeconomic incentive, fluency in Spanish was
confined ordinarily to Filipinos living in Greater Manila.” He continues that even
in Manila, Tagalog remained the “language of the hearth.”90 In fact, local dialects
remained the languages of most schools.91 Similarly, Javier and Mogol find, “Pri-
mary instruction was confined to the schools and colleges in the City of Manila.
From 1863 no attempt whatsoever was made to put rudimentary instruction within
the reach of the great mass of the school population.”92 Many of the schools in the
poblaciones were still far from ideal due to a lack of funds, supplies, and teachers
to adequately implement the 1863 decree guidelines. Therefore even in the cities
public primary school curriculum was confined to reading, writing, basic math,
Christian doctrine, and rarely Spanish-language instruction.93 In the areas outside
Manila instruction remained in the local dialects both because of friar opposition
and a lack of teacher training and materials.94 The lack of books and other materi-
als impeded instruction. Teachers were forced to emphasize memorization over
more progressive pedagogical methods; inferior schools and rigid discipline also
contributed to an environment that was not conducive to learning.95 Robles identi-
fies several defects in the 1863 decree, including its inability to meet the needs of a
modernizing nation and provide sufficient teachers for towns of varying sizes; the
continued limitation of a system tied to Christian dogma “corrupted by mundane
practices to perpetuate intellectual stagnation,” which resulted in elite Filipinos
looking elsewhere for education; and most importantly, lack of incentives to teach,
which led to high teacher attrition.96 Simply put, most royal educational decrees
were defective because they did not take into account the unique conditions of the
22 european education

archipelago, and thus outlined requirements that were nearly impossible to meet. In
addition, the high turnover of governor-generals and other colonial officials meant
that it was difficult to maintain a consistent educational policy.97
However, even a flawed education can be a dangerous tool against colonial
rule. Education can either liberate or subjugate a people.98 The impact of the 1863
decree, instead of continuing the tradition of subjugation, may have had important
unintended consequences by provided fuel for the growing nationalist movement,
at least in the voices of the ilustrados. The state of mass education was often a
featured complaint in the writings of ilustrados and other native elites. Members
of the Philippine intelligentsia, often educated in Europe and influenced by the
ideals of liberalism, recognized the importance of education for the welfare of their
people and saw flaws in the colonial education system.99 Until 1863, mass education
in the Philippines was decentralized, ungraded, and consisted of little more than
catechism classes; in many cases the quality of public primary education remained
the same after the promising Educational Decree of 1863 was issued. Ilustrados
advocated for the secularization of mass education, civil supervision of public
schools, Spanish-language instruction, and vocational training. The ilustrados’
cause was inadvertently bolstered by the publication of a pamphlet, “Si Tandang
Basio Macunat,” by a Franciscan friar in 1885. The friar ridiculed Filipino attempts
to attain the same education as Spaniards. He believed that a European education
would cause Filipinos to be lazy, eschew work, and generally live a life of idle-
ness and vice. Therefore it was antithetical to teach Filipinos Spanish and provide
them with an academic education.100 Graciano López Jaena, an ilustrado writing
from Spain in 1887, highlights the typical feeling among the native intelligentsia
regarding colonial education: “The outstanding cause of the distressed situation of
Filipinas today is the anomalous education received by the youth in the schools. . . .
They are taught how to pray and never to work. In all the public schools Spanish
grammar is conspicuous by its absence, because certain people place obstacles to
teaching the Indio Spanish.”101 An 1887 article published in España en Filipinas
similarly states that a faulty public education system, in which Spanish-language
instruction is neglected, is to blame for the deficiencies of Filipino character. The
article accuses friars of purposely keeping Filipinos in a state of intellectual “dark-
ness” to render the populace subservient and amenable to colonial rule.102 Emerging
nationalists viewed mass public education and Spanish language as keys to advanced
knowledge that would lead the nation toward autonomy; the stringent emphasis on
religion in public schools was inimical to individual and national progress.

Conclusion

Spain established an elaborate system of education in the Philippines. In fact, the

number of students attending school in the archipelago rivaled the student popula-
tion in many European cities.103 Zaide writes that colonial education under Spain
not only propagated “Christianity and the Spanish culture, but also lifted the people
 winter 2012–13 23

to a high intellectual level.” He continues, “Because of the existence of schools, the

Philippines during the Spanish period had a high percentage of literacy comparable
to that of other Asian countries and several countries in Europe.”104 In defying the
decrees ordering Spanish as the language of instruction and instead learning the
local dialects, friars contributed greatly to the field of linguistics in the archipelago.
Estioko writes that as a result of learning the local dialects friars produced “the first
grammars and dictionaries that led to the development of Filipino languages.” 105
While Spain intended education to act as a tool of effective governance and to
maintain its colonial possession, the opposite took place. As often happens with
education in colonial contexts, no matter how much officials try to control the
content and outcome of education, it tends to create a cadre of enlightened people
who “would seek the overthrow of a colonizing power that disabuses itself and that
feeds upon the submissiveness and tolerance of the [natives].”106 Public education
in the archipelago became more widespread and standardized to meet the needs of
an expanding bureaucracy. Education as a tool for subjugation turned into a tool
for empowerment and the birth of nationalism, mainly because of the shortcomings
of the educational development critically perceived by local educated groups. In
short, education in general, but especially in the private schools and universities,
was “contributing towards the intellectual maturity of the Filipinos and their con-
sequent ability to rule the destinies of their country.”107 The perceived shortcomings
of the public education system contributed just as much to Filipinos’ nationalistic
awakening as its successes. As Martin concludes:
The privations, vexations and frustrations the Filipino people experienced dur-
ing the more than three centuries of Spanish rule, the weaknesses of the edu-
cational system in vogue in the Philippines, the most objectionable feature of
which being the stranglehold of the friars, and the other innumerable forms of
misrule and oppression prevalent in the country became a force which caused
the people to seek effective, radical, and immediate reforms in education as well
as in government.108
In 1903 the American government observed the disconnect between Spain’s lofty
educational rhetoric and the disappointing educational reality in the archipelago:
“The Spanish appear to have established a most excellent and comprehensive sys-
tem, if measured by the school laws, but it apparently failed to satisfy the natives
or attain the objects contemplated by the Spaniards.”109
Based on numbers alone, the Educational Decree of 1863 led to the establishment
of countless public primary schools for the masses where children could obtain
literacy skills and in some cases prepare for higher education and professions. When
Americans arrived in the archipelago they were surprised by the extent of education
available to Filipinos and the system of schools already in place.110 Perhaps the
greatest legacy of the 1863 decree was that it organized the educational activities
of the religious orders, shifting responsibility for education from those orders to the
state. By creating normal schools and introducing a uniform system of instruction
and administration, the decree set out to standardize public education across the
24 european education

archipelago to meet the needs of the expanding, modern bureaucratic state.111

Future research might consider how the shortcomings of Spain’s educational ef-
forts for the masses unintentionally bolstered the nationalist cause and set the stage
for Philippine autonomy, especially the role of Spanish friars in the archipelago.
In their writings, ilustrados often cited the friars’ failures to teach Spanish and
otherwise provide an adequate education for the masses as a catalyst for Filipino
discontent that could lead to the colonial state’s downfall. Indeed, future research
might examine how education and the opportunity to cultivate one’s intellect nur-
tured those Filipinos who eventually led the revolution and helped to create the
independent Philippine Republic. While the Philippine public education system
envisioned by Spain never came to fruition, the nation did make impressive liberal
advances by placing education under government control and bringing literacy to a
great deal of Filipinos, along with a respect for learning, an introduction to Western
ideals and knowledge, and, perhaps, the tools for eventual autonomy.

Notes

1. Paul P. Zwaenepoel, Tertiary education in the Philippines, 1611–1972: A systems

analysis (Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix, 1975), p. 4.
2. Leonardo R. Estioko, History of education: A Filipino perspective (Manila: LOGOS,
1994), p. 166.
3. Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism (revised) (London: Verso, 2006), p. 115.
4. Florencio P. Fresnoza & Canuto P. Casim, Essentials of the Philippine educational
system (Manila: Abiva, 1964 [revised]), pp. 8–9; Evergisto Bazaco, History of education
in the Philippines: Spanish period, 1565–1898 (Manila: University of Santo Tomas Press,
1953), pp. 46–47; Vincent R. Catapang, The development and the present status of education
in the Philippine Islands (Boston: Stratford, 1926), p. 18.
5. Gregorio F. Zaide, Philippine political and cultural history, vol. 2 (Manila: Philip-
pine Education Co., 1957 [revised]), p. 90; see also Eufronio M. Alip, Political and cultural
history of the Philippines, vol. 1 (Manila: Alip & Brion, 1950), p. 215; Estioko, History of
education, p. 167.
6. Alip, Political and cultural history of the Philippines, vol. 1, p. 208; see also Bazaco,
History of education in the Philippines, p. 48. Several scholars note that in response to a
priest-teacher shortage, some orders created a system in which the more advanced students
taught the less advanced—a method that predated the Lancastrian, or monitorial, system of
instruction popular in urban England and the United States by 300 years. See John L. Phelan,
The Hispanization of the Philippines: Spanish aims and Filipino responses, 1565–1700
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), p. 58; Alip, Political and cultural history
of the Philippines, vol. 1, p. 21; Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine educational
system, p. 9; Dalmacio Martin, ed., A century of education in the Philippines, 1861–1961
(Manila: Philippine Historical Association, 1980), p. 6.
7. The main religious orders operating in the Philippines during Spanish colonization
included the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians (known collectively as the friars),
and the Jesuits (expelled by Spain in 1768; returned in 1859).
8. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, 4; see also Benigno Aldana, The
educational system of the Philippines (Manila: University Publishing Co., 1949), pp. 2–3;
Catapang, The development and the present status of education in the Philippine Islands,
p. 22.
 winter 2012–13 25

9. Aldana, The educational system of the Philippines, 19; see also Encarnación Alzona,
A history of education in the Philippines, 1565–1930 (Manila: University of the Philippines
Press, 1932), p. 22.
10. Arthur L. Carson, Higher education in the Philippines (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, 1961), p. 30.
11. Bazaco, History of education in the Philippines, p. 58; see also Alzona, A history of
education in the Philippines, p. 50. Unlike Martin, Carson, Bazaco, and other scholars, in
The development and the present status of education in the Philippine Islands, Catapang
blames the “weak and conscienceless” officials, not the Spanish friars, for failure to carry
out the provisions of the educational decrees (p. 56).
12. Estioko, History of education, p. 166.
13. Carson, Higher education in the Philippines, pp. 29–30; Aldana, The educational
system of the Philippines, p. 18; Bazaco, History of education in the Philippines, p. 49. See
Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, for a full description of Salazar’s 1582
primary school plan (pp. 9–10). Under the encomienda system, the Spanish crown granted
people—often soldiers, conquistadors, or native elites—a specific number of natives for
whom they were responsible. Encomendero responsibilities for the natives in their charge
included protection, and instruction in Spanish language and Catholicism. In return, the
encomenderos could exact tribute from the natives, typically in the form of labor.
14. Zaide, Philippine political and cultural history, vol. 2, p. 93; see also Alzona, A his-
tory of education in the Philippines, p. 48.
15. Antonio M. Molina, The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1 (Manila: U.S.T.
Cooperative, 1960), pp. 219, 226, 240.
16. Alzona, A History of education in the Philippines, pp. 46–48; Bazaco, History of
education in the Philippines, 197–98; Martin, A century of education in the Philippines,
p. 38. One is left to wonder, had the Liberals not been defeated in 1823, if a mass public
education system would have been established in the early nineteenth century and perhaps
curbed the rising nationalist sentiment a while longer.
17. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 38.
18. Carson, Higher education in the Philippines, 30; see also Aldana, The educational
system of the Philippines, p. 19.
19. See Bazaco (History of education in the Philippines, pp. 54–57) for a detailed descrip-
tion of the royal educational decrees issued by Spanish kings from Charles I (1516–1556)
to Ferdinand VII (1808–1833).
20. Census of the Philippine Islands: Taken under the direction of the Philippine Com-
mission in the year 1903, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1905), p. 576;
Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine Educational System, p. 8.
21. Phelan, The Hispanization of the Philippines, p. 60; Osias writes, “Had the Jesuits
remained continuously in the Philippines, it is probable that the establishment of a primary
school system would not have been so long delayed” (Education in the Philippine Islands
under the Spanish Regime, p. 94). Molina finds that the Jesuits’ popularity among Filipinos
was strong; their expulsion from the archipelago in 1768 therefore alienated the Spanish
regime to Filipinos (The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1, p. 211).
22. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 8.
23. Estioko, History of education, p. 167; Martin, A century of education in the Philip-
pines, pp. 5, 43; Bazaco, History of education in the Philippines, p. 58.
24. Zwaenepoel, Tertiary education in the Philippines, p. 7; see also Census of the
Philippine Islands, vol. 3, p. 594; Ramon R. Lala, The Philippine Islands (New York:
Continental, 1898), p. 78.
25. Benedict Anderson, The spectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and
the world (London: Verso, 1998), p. 195; see also Alzona, A history of education in the
Philippines, p. 97.
26 european education

26. Zaide, Philippine political and cultural history, vol. 2, p. 93; Catapang, The devel-
opment and the present status of education in the Philippine Islands, p. 52; Camilo Osias,
Education in the Philippine Islands Under the Spanish Regime (Manila: Philippine Education
Co., 1917), p. 94. In 1855 Governor-General Manuel Crespo instructed the commission to
(1) fix the number of male and female teachers based on the number of people paying tributes
in each town; (2) draft regulations for the uniform instruction in and administration of all
schools; (3) outline the curriculum content for boys and girls, including Spanish language;
and (4) advise on the feasibility and establishment of a normal school in Manila (Alzona,
A history of education in the Philippines, pp. 48–49).
27. Estioko, History of education, p. 170.
28. John D. Blanco, Frontier constitutions: Christianity and colonial empire in the
nineteenth-century Philippines (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), p. 124.
29. Zwaenepoel, Tertiary education in the Philippines, p. 7; see also Eliodoro G. Robles,
The Philippines in the nineteenth century (Quezon City: Malaya Books, 1969), p. 219.
30. Bruce Cruikshank, “Continuity and change in the economic and administrative
history of 19th century Samar.” In A. W. McCoy and E. C. de Jesus, ed., Philippine social
history: Global trade and local transformations (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press, 1982), p. 238.
31. Ibid., 229.
32. Anderson, Imagined communities, p. 115.
33. Ibid., p. 116.
34. Aldana, The educational system of the Philippines, p. 5.
35. José de la Concha to Queen Isabella II of Spain, 20 December 1863.
36. Eufronio M. Alip, Political and cultural history of the Philippines, vol. 2 (Manila:
Alip & Brion, 1952), p. 61; Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, pp. 43–44;
Molina, The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1, p. 299; Catapang, The development
and the present status of education in the Philippine Islands,52–53; Census of the Philip-
pine Islands, vol. 3, p. 582.
37. The decree stated that in towns with 5,000 inhabitants there should be two schools for
each sex, in towns of 10,000, three schools for each sex, etc. The number of schools should
increase with every 5,000 inhabitants. Barrios with a population of 500 were required to
have one school for each sex. See Regulations for Schools and Teachers of Primary Instruc-
tion (1863), Article 8.
38. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 220; see also Osias, Education
in the Philippine Islands under the Spanish Regime, 98–99; Bazaco, History of education
in the Philippines, p. 250.
39. Regulations for Schools and Teachers of Primary Instruction (1863), Articles 2, 4,
& 6; Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine educational system, p. 10; Molina,
The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1, p. 299; Alzona, A history of education in the
Philippines, p. 67; Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 588–90.
40. The Superior Commission of Primary (later Public) Instruction included the arch-
bishop, seven governor-appointed members, and the governor-general as president; its
duties—besides supervision of all schools—was to approve textbooks, assign teachers,
classify schools, and determine teacher salaries. In short, it was the duty of the Commis-
sion to establish and maintain uniformity across the public school system. Even though
the Commission was the top overseer of the schools, parish priests on the local level still
wielded much power. If a priest was against the use of Spanish in public schools, he could
use his authority to ensure a teacher spoke solely in the local dialect. See Educational Decree
of 1863, Articles 15, 18 & 19; Regulations for Schools and Teachers of Primary Instruc-
tion (1863), Articles 30, 31, 32, 33 & 34; Molina, The Philippines through the centuries,
vol. 1, p. 301; Bazaco, History of education in the Philippines, pp. 198–99, 219; Alzona, A
history of education in the Philippines, pp. 99–100.
 winter 2012–13 27

41. The personal service tax was akin to community service work imposed by the colonial
government. Under the 1863 decree, those who did not speak Spanish but were ill could be
exempt from personal service with certification from their parish priest.
42. Educational Decree of 1863, Articles 16 & 17; Osias, Education in the Philippine
Islands under the Spanish Regime, p. 98; Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine
educational system, pp. 10–11; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 95;
Molina, The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1, p. 301; Bazaco, History of education
in the Philippines, p. 226. Phelan writes that the new rule that only Filipinos who spoke
Spanish would be eligible for government posts was unenforceable since few Filipinos
spoke Spanish. Instead, the colonial government backpedaled and stated that Filipinos who
spoke Spanish would be given preference for government posts (The Hispanization of the
Philippines, p. 132).
43. Bazaco writes that the institution of school prizes for Spanish-language achievement
was a great success, especially among future nationalists: “All the prominent native leaders
of the country in the second half of the past century who worked first to incorporate the
Philippines as a Spanish province with all the rights and attributes of such, and later—seeing
that this could not be brought about—worked for the independence of the country, were
great lovers of the Spanish language and attained eminence in Spanish letters and literature”
(History of education in the Philippines, pp. 226–27).
44. Carson, Higher education in the Philippines, p. 30; see also, Zaide, Philippine plitical
and cultural history, vol. 2, p. 94; Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 45;
Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 604, 615. The first normal school for women
was established within the Municipal School in Manila in 1871; a freestanding normal school
in Nueva Caceres opened in 1875.
45. Regulations for Schools and Teachers of Primary Instruction (1863), Articles 20 &
21; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 64; Martin, A century of education
in the Philippines, pp. 45–46. Normal school students were divided into two classes: those
who paid a monthly fee of eight pesos for their board, lodging, and instruction and were not
required to teach upon graduation, and those who attended on scholarship and were required
to teach for ten years after graduation. Scholarship students who failed to fulfill their teaching
obligation to the government were required to repay the full amount of their financial aid.
(Educational Decree of 1863, Articles 1 & 2; see also Alip, Political and cultural history of
the Philippines, vol. 2, p. 63; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, pp. 63–64;
Zaide, Philippine Political and Cultural History, vol. 2, p. 93; Aldana, The educational system
of the Philippines, 8; Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 45).
46. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, pp. 220–21; Alzona, A History of
Education in the Philippines, p. 64.
47. Regulations for Schools and Teachers of Primary Instruction (1863), Articles 15,
17, 18, 19 & 22.
48. Educational Decree of 1863, Articles 8, 10, 12, 13 & 14; Regulations for Schools
and Teachers of Primary Instruction (1863), Articles 23 & 24; Aldana, The educational
system of the Philippines, pp. 7–8; see also Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine
educational system, p. 11; Osias, Education in the Philippine Islands under the Spanish
Regime, p. 97; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 76; Martin, A century
of education in the Philippines, pp. 46–47. Though the decree outlined several incentives
for teachers to enter and remain in the profession, by 1892 the government owed teachers
7,763,075.44 pesos in back pay. This salary backlog was likely the result of the highly
centralized colonial government, which could not release funds until it received approval
from the metropole (Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 75). Small and
often intermittent salaries provided teachers little motive to do their job well or remain in
the profession (Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, p. 595). Teacher shortages were a
constant issue throughout the Spanish regime.
28 european education

49. Regulations for schools and teachers of primary instruction (1863), Article 1; Robles,
The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 221; see also Osias, Education in the Philippine
Islands under the Spanish Regime, p. 99; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines,
p. 67; Fresnoza & Casim, Essentials of the Philippine educational system, p. 10; Bazaco,
History of education in the Philippines, pp. 222–23; Catapang, The development and the
present status of education in the Philippine Islands, pp. 55–56.
50. Regulations for schools and teachers of primary instruction (1863), Articles 5 & 7;
Yolanda V. Javier & Martha A. Mogol, The Filipinos: Their education yesterday and today
(Manila, 2005), p. 20; Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 588–90; see also Bazaco,
History of education in the Philippines, pp. 224–25, 245–46; Alzona, A history of education
in the Philippines, p. 69.
51. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, pp. 6, 38–39.
52. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 223; see also Alzona, A history
of education in the Philippines, p. 97. Lala, reporting on the state of Philippine education
in 1898, paints an unflattering picture of Spanish friars: “The monks have opposed every
attempt at reform. Their policy has ever been the policy of ignorance, knowing that their
livelihood depended upon its perpetuation. It has been their aim chiefly to limit public
instruction to the mere rudiments of knowledge—giving to every subject a religious bias”
(The Philippine Islands, p. 78).
53. Javier & Mogol, The Filipinos, p. 22.
54. Osias, Education in the Philippine Islands under the Spanish regime, p. 100; see also
Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 103.
55. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 69; Alzona, A history of educa-
tion in the Philippines, p. 97.
56. Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, pp. 21, 95.
57. Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, p. 582.
58. Survey of the educational system of the Philippine Islands (Monroe Commission)
(Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1925), p. 12.
59. Javier & Mogol, The Filipinos, p. 18.
60. Aldana, The educational system of the Philippines, p. 5; see also Bazaco, History
of education in the Philippines, pp. 236–37; Martin, A century of education in the Philip-
pines, p. 55.
61. Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, pp. 99, 172.
62. Phelan, The Hispanization of the Philippines, p. 132; see also Bazaco, History of
education in the Philippines, p. 53, regarding parent ambivalence toward sending their
children to school, especially in poor villages.
63. Alip, Political and cultural history of the Philippines, vol. 1, pp. 216–17; see
also Aldana, The educational system of the Philippines, pp. 3, 6; Martin, A century of
education in the Philippines, pp. 6–7; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines,
pp. 22–23, 35, 101.
64. Aldana, The educational system of the Philippines, p. 6; see also Alzona, A history
of education in the Philippines, p. 102. Alzona writes that a lack of trained teachers and the
busy schedule of friars often meant that the public school teachers hired could barely read
or write. Since Christian doctrine was typically the only book available in most schools,
and it was translated into the local dialects, Spanish language was rarely used in public
schools (pp. 22–23).
65. See Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, and Alzona, A history of
education in the Philippines. Alzona asserts that during the Spanish regime, “the taking of
the school census was indifferently and haltingly done” (p. 98).
66. Osias, Education in the Philippine Islands under the Spanish regime, p. 100. Manila
proves a good example of the exponential increase in the establishment of public primary
 winter 2012–13 29

schools following the Educational Decree of 1863. In 1836 there was one public primary
school with an enrollment of 80; by 1867 there were 25 public schools with a total enroll-
ment of 1,940; one year later, in 1868, there were 30 schools with total enrollment almost
doubling to 3,389. By 1892 there were 84 public schools with 10,000 students in attendance.
Thus, in approximately 56 years, 83 new public schools were established in Manila, the
bulk of which appeared after the 1863 decree. See Bazaco, History of Education in the
Philippines, pp. 230–31.
67. Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 590–92.
68. La instruccion primaria en Filipinas desde 1596 hasta 1868 (Madrid, 1869), p. 19;
José Montero y Vidal, El archipiélago filipino (Madrid, 1886), p. 325; cited in Zaide, Phil-
ippine political and cultural history, vol. 2, p. 96; see also Robles, The Philippines in the
nineteenth century, pp. 224–25; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 98.
69. Estioko, History of education, p. 178.
70. Bazaco, History of education in the Philippines, pp. 229–30; see also Census of the
Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 592–93.
71. Guía oficial de las Islas Filipinas para 1898 (Manila: Publicadapor la Secretaría del
Gobierno General, 1898), p. 232.
72. Interestingly, there were fewer teachers (1,914 according to the Americans in 1900)
than there were public schools (2,167 according to the 1898 Guía oficial) in the Philippines
at the turn of the twentieth century.
73. Report of the Philippine Commission to the president, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 37; see also Report of the Commissioner of educa-
tion for the year 1899–1900, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1901); Catapang, The development and the present status of education in the Philippine
Islands, p. 56.
74. Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, pp. 675, 684, 688–89.
75. Ibid., pp. 593–94.
76. E. Berkeley Tompkins, Anti-imperialism in the United States: The great debate,
1890–1920 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970).
77. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 223.
78. The provinces of Pangasinan, Pampanga, Bulacan, Tondo, Zambales, Bataan, Cavite,
Tayabas, and Albay in Luzon did not submit reports; in the Visayas only Antique, Capiz,
and Iloilo reported. However, even this partial report gives a sense of the number of schools,
students, and literacy rates in the archipelago, and proves an especially stark contrast when
compared with other official government education statistics. See Robles, The Philippines
in the nineteenth century, p. 224.
79. Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, p. 639; see also Report of the commissioner
of education, vol. 1.
80. Ibid., pp. 640, 649–52; see also Amparo S. Lardizabal, Pioneer American teachers
and Philippine education (Quezon City: Phoenix Press, 1991), pp. 41–43. American soldiers
were the first teachers during American occupation and often traded their guns for books
once fighting ceased in any given locality. However, trained teachers were needed to imple-
ment America’s educational plan for the archipelago, and they began to arrive en masse at
the turn of the twentieth century.
81. Ibid., p. 689.
82. Survey of the educational system of the Philippine Islands, p. 206.
83. Ibid., p. 43.
84. Ibid., p. 45.
85. Ibid., p. 32.
86. Ibid., p. 127.
87. Ibid., pp. 128–29.
30 european education

88. Ibid., pp. 206, 214.

89. Ibid., p. 216.
90. Phelan, TheHispanization of the Philippines, pp. 132–33.
91. Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 95.
92. Javier & Mogol, The Filipinos, p. 23.
93. Catapang, The development and the present status of education in the Philippine
Islands, p. 58; Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, p. 102.
94. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 226.
95. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 56; Alzona, A history of educa-
tion in the Philippines, pp. 101, 103, 104.
96. Robles, The Philippines in the nineteenth century, p. 229.
97. Nicholas P. Cushner, Spain in the Philippines: From conquest to revolution (Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1971), p. 211; Alzona, A history of education in
the Philippines, pp. 23, 50.
98. Estioko, History of education, p. 175.
99. Liberalism, especially the notions of universal suffrage and freedom of speech,
press, and association, was an increasing trend in Spain by the mid-nineteenth century
that threatened to reach the nation’s overseas possessions not long after the 1863 decree
was issued. Ilustrados living in Europe at the time were aware of (and influenced by)
liberal ideals and sought to introduce those notions to the Philippines if the colonial state
failed to do so. The possibility of the secularization of education particularly appealed to
ilustrados frustrated with the inferior colonial education system under the control of friars.
See Molina, The Philippines through the Centuries, vol. 1; John N. Schumacher, The pro-
paganda movement, 1880–1895: The creation of a Filipino consciousness, the making of
the revolution (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997); Alzona, A history
of education in the Philippines, p. 175.
100. Cited in Alzona, A history of education in the Philippines, pp. 96–97.
101. Graciano López Jaena, España en Filipinas, 21 June 1887; cited in Estioko, History
of education, p. 177; see also Schumacher, The propaganda movement, p. 77. The “certain
people” to whom López Jaena refers are most likely Spanish friars.
102. Eduardo de Lete “Honroso espectáculo,” España en Filipinas, 21 June 1887; cited
in Schumacher, The propaganda movement, p. 76.
103. Molina, The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 1, p. 321.
104. Zaide, Philippine political and cultural history, vol. 2, pp. 95–96.
105. Estioko, History of education, 169; see also Bazaco, History of education in the
Philippines, p. 51.
106. Zwaenepoel, Tertiary education in the Philippines, p. 24.
107. Molina, The Philippines through the centuries, vol. 2 (Manila: U.S.T. Coopera-
tive, 1961), p. 10. See also Glenn Anthony May, “Filipino revolutionaries in the making:
The old school tie in Batangas.” In. G. A. May, A past recovered (Quezon City: New Day,
1987), pp. 53–65.
108. Martin, A century of education in the Philippines, p. 71.
109. Census of the Philippine Islands, vol. 3, p. 575.
110. Zaide, Philippine political and cultural history, vol. 2, p. 96.
111. Cushner, Spain in the Philippines, p. 226; Alzona, A history of education in the
Philippines, p. 70.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.
Copyright of European Education is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.