Maria Luisa Claravall - Velasco PHDEM713
1804413 FINAL OUTPUT
THE STATE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S EDUCATION IN THE
PHILIPPINES
INTRODUCTION
As stipulated in the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 section 3(h), Indigenous
Peoples (IPs) or Indigenous cultural communities (ICC) refer to “a group of people or homogenous
societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as an
organized community or communally-bounded and defined territory, and who have, under
claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed, and utilized such territories
sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions, and other distinctive cultural traits, or
who have, through resistance to political, social, and cultural inroads of colonization, non-
indigenous religions, and cultures, become historically differentiated from the majority of
Filipinos. ICCs or IPs shall likewise include people who are regarded as indigenous on account of
their descent from the population, which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or
colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures or the
establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic,
cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional
domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.”
In the study of Cornelio and De Castro (2016) on the state of Indigenous Education in the
Philippines, they cited NCIP’s (2013) report stating that there are about 11 million IPs and 110
ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines, namely: Igorots (who live in the Cordillera mountain
ranges in Northern Luzon), the Lumads (the non-Muslim indigenous peoples of Mindanao),
Mangyans (who live in the islands of Mindoro and Sibuyan), and the Negritos (residing in different
regions but mainly characterized by their physical features as curly hair and dark skin).
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) remain to be among the most vulnerable and marginalized
members of the citizenry. Many IP communities continue to lack access to decent basic social
services, have limited opportunities to engage the mainstream economy and suffer social,
economic, and political exclusion. The lack of access to a culture-responsive basic education is
one of the alarming concerns that IPs face. To the IPs, basic education is an essential means to
claim/reclaim their other rights, to exercise self-determinism, and to expand choices given to
them.
The Right to Education is a primary need for most IPs and/or ICCs because through
education they can reclaim what was taken from them. It is through education that they can rise
from the stereotypes held about them, and it is through education that they can provide for a
better life for their families and communities.
The Right to Education is globally recognized to bring about changes in the world and
among individuals (Mandela, n.d.: United Nations, 2017 as cited in Eduardo and Gabriel, 2021).
It is a right not only of those who can afford to pay for a good education but by anyone regardless
of the language or religion, whatever the color of skin and circumstances of birth or social origin,
notwithstanding, political inclinations, and economic conditions (Eduardo and Gabriel, 2021). In
the Philippines, numerous laws, statutes, and policies were forged to make education accessible
to vulnerable groups such as the IPs. One landmark law is the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of
1997 or IPRA. IPRA of 1997 recognizes the State’s obligation to ensure the continuity of the
unique cultural experiences of IPs/ICC by assuring their full participation in the activities and
endeavors toward health, education, and other areas of services making them responsive to the
demands of their unique communities (Eduardo and Gabriel, 2021).
Statistics from a press brief released by the Department of Education (DepEd) on October
25, 2019 noted that for school year 2018-2019, there were 2,593,555 IP learners enrolled in
39,994 public schools whereas, private schools had 253,113 IP learners. Only a tenth of those in
the public schools go to private schools for some obvious reasons. To name a few, (1) cost of
transportation from their homes to mainstream schools, (2) need for board and lodging especially
if the school is far from their homes, and (3) need for subsistence allowance as they attend to
their schooling. While these are economic and financial in nature, the IP youth experience more
deepening problems which shall be expounded in the latter sections of this paper.
This is research is significant as it attempts to describe the issues experienced by IP youth
and IP communities in their pursuit to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes
through quality education that is culturally-responsive to their needs. This will be shown through
a description of two schools which have successfully-implemented a culturally-responsive
curriculum, one in the basic education sector, and the other in the higher education sector.
The study will examine to what extent the provisions in the National IP Education Policy
Framework been evident in some schools where IP youth are enrolled.
The objectives of this research are:
i. To describe the issues experience by IP youth in their schooling;
ii. To display a culturally-responsive curriculum through the experience of
two schools; and
iii. To show evidence of a culturally-inclusive education practice
UNESCO in its brief reiterated that education is a human right and a force for sustainable
development and peace. Every goal in the 2030 Agenda requires education to empower people
with knowledge, skills, and values to live in dignity.
Sustainable Development Goal 4 ensures inclusive and equitable quality education and
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Of the 10 targets to achieve this SDG 4, Gender
Equality and Inclusion is of particular importance to this study. It is stated that, by 2030, through
the achievement of SDG4, gender disparities in education are eliminated and that equal access
to all levels of education and training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities,
indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations are ensured (statement from NEDA
during the 2018 Education Summit).
While there are some institutions who have made progressed in achieving a more
culturally-inclusive curriculum that responds to the needs of indigenous peoples, issues on
stereotyping, lack of culturally-inclusive learning resources, lack of relevant facilities, lack of
competent and culturally-sensitive teachers/learning facilitators continue to derail the IP
achievement of quality education.
The above-stated reasons and the call to an inclusive and equitable quality education
make this topic worthy undertaking.
BODY
The recognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights is one struggle that has been
carried out passionately for years. The United Nations in its 2007 general assembly, adopted the
Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples which caused jubilation worldwide among
indigenous cultural communities and various support groups from civil society (IAG, 2011).
However, even before this, the Philippines has recognized the need for protection of indigenous
people’s right that is why Congress passed the Indigenous People’s Rights Act or R.A. 8371 in
October 1997.
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA 1997)
In this law, “The State shall take measures with the participation of ICCs/IPs concerned to
protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural identity, by assuring maximum ICC//IP
participation in the direction of education, health, as well as, other services of ICC/IP in order to
render such service more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities.”
IPRA provided for the establishment of the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) which the law mandates to “protect and promote the interest and well-being of the
ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions, and institution” (IAG, 2011).
Unfortunately, the NCIP has not been able to fulfill its mandate. To date, indigenous peoples are
discriminated, marginalized, and disempowered in every aspect of their lives. They remain the
most disadvantaged peoples representing the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable
sector.
National Indigenous Peoples Education Policy Framework
Indigenous Peoples Education (IPEd) Program refers to “the program that supports
education initiatives undertaken through formal, non-formal, and informal modalities with
emphasis on any of, but not limited to, the key areas of Indigenous Knowledge, Systems and
Practices (IKSPs) and community history, indigenous languages, Indigenous Language Systems
(ILS), and community life cycle-based curriculum and assessment, educational goals, aspirations
and competencies specific to ICCs, engagement of elders and other community members in the
teaching and learning assessment, and management of initiative, recognition, and continuing
practice of the community’s ILS and the rights and responsibilities of ICCs” (section 8.4, IRR of
R.A. 10533).
This IPEd is the response of Department of Education to the right of IPs to basic education
that is responsive to their context, respects their identities, and promotes the value of their
indigenous knowledge, skills, and other aspects of their cultural heritage. To concretize the
implementation of the IPEd’s Policy Framework, hereunder are its 7 General Policy Statements:
1. Ensure the provision of universal and equitable access of all IPs to quality and
relevant basic education services towards functional literacy for all;
2. Adapt appropriate basic education pedagogy, content, and assessment through
the integration of Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) in all
learning areas;
3. Provide adequate and culturally-appropriate learning resources and environment
to IP learners;
4. Strengthen the hiring, deployment, and continuous development of teachers,
learning facilitators in the implementation of its IP Education Program;
5. Establish and strengthen appropriate multi-level units with DepEd responsible for
planning, implementing, and monitoring of IP Education interventions; and
6. Expand and strengthen institutional and civil society linkages to ensure proper
coordination, knowledge-sharing, and sustainability of the IP Education Program
However, as with all laws, the test is in its implementation.
In a press brief released by DepEd dated October 25, 2019, IP learners enrolled for school
year 2018-2019 totaled 2,593,555 in 39, 994 public schools; whereas, a tenth percent of said
figure, that is, 253,113 IP learners were enrolled in 10,980 private school. Such is the case
because of economic and financial struggles experienced by IPs. In addition to economic and
financial struggles are school-related concerns such as lack of materials/learning resources, the
use of English as the language of instruction in most IP curricula, and stereotyping struggles
mainstream society.
Economic and Financial Challenges
The study on the Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Education: The Dumagat
Experience in the Provinces of Nueva Ecija and Aurora, in the Philippines by Eduardo and Gabriel
(2021) noted the financial and economic challenges of the Aetas who attend regular schools and
universities. The right to Education is hampered by the dehumanizing effects of poverty present
in most ICCs. Eduardo and Gabriel (2021) explain that IP/ICC students are challenged by the cost
of transportation toward educational institutions, the necessity of board and lodging, and the
need for subsistence allowance on top of all these concerns. These challenges being experienced
by the Dumagats are common to minority groups aspiring for education.
School-Related Challenges
School-related challenges are three-fold: (a) lack of materials covering IP struggles; (b) the
use of English as the language of instruction; and (c) stereotyping.
R.A. 10908 or the Integrated History Law (authored by Senator Sonny Angara) mandates
the integration of the history, culture, and identity studies of IPs and Filipino-Muslims in basic
and higher education. This law was created to address the lack of materials covering IP struggles.
In order for schools to effectively do this, the Act requires them to consult with experts in IP and
Filipino-Muslim fields of knowledge as a primary step.
For the Basic Education sector, the DepEd in its Order 22 s2016 on the Implementing
Guidelines on the Allocation and Utilization of the IP Education Program Support Fund for Fiscal
Year 2016, mandated relevant government agencies to allocate funds for curriculum learning
resources development in which the activities are – (a) curriculum contextualization and learning
resources development sessions, consultations and workshops of schools and division personnel
with IP elders, leaders, culture-bearers, and community representatives and other relevant
stakeholders, and (b) production of learning materials with content duly-validated with
concerned IP communities that have undergone quality assurance.
In the same DepEd Order 22 s2016, funds from relevant government agencies are
allocated for capacity-building to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teachers, managers,
and personnel across DepEd offices to be effective implementors of IPEd. Tan-Ocampo and
Roberto (2019) enumerate Capacity-building activities as training/re-tooling of teachers, staff,
DepEd personnel, technical assistance training, and workshops on Indigenous Language Systems
(ILS), community engagement, and partnership building. These capacity building activities aim to
address the problem of scarcity of educators proficient in the language of the IPs/ICCs as noted
in the study of Eduardo and Gabriel (2016). The same study revealed that a majority of Mother
Tongue-based subjects cover only local dialects and languages but not actually the languages of
indigenous natives (Eduardo and Gabriel, 2016). Another problem in relation to language is that,
in mainstream schools attended by IP youth, majority of the subjects are being taught in English.
Perhaps the most alarming effect of the current curricular set up in the IP schools is the
widening intergenerational gap. As documented in the report of the Episcopal Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (n.d.) learning from school that indigenous people’s ways are backward,
indigenous youth consequently view elders as backward or inferior since they are living memories
of these life-ways. This is manifested in the youth’s disrespect and sometimes blatant disregard
of the elders resulting in broken intergenerational ties. Since schooled youth have been observed
to be close-minded or distant, elders have also become silent to the point that in some
communities elders feel and accept that they have no place or have lost their roles in the
community.
While much has yet to be done to fully realize the intent of the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997, the case of the Pamulaan Center for Indigenous Peoples’ Education is a fitting
example of how IP Education is put into action.
“Pamulaan is an education institution created for indigenous peoples. It is one of kind in the
Philippines, maybe in Asia. Its main task to create culturally-appropriate and relevant pathways
in training and formation of the indigenous youths. It aims to produce graduates equipped with
knowledge and skillful but still rooted in their own cultures. We see ourselves globally-
competitive but still rooted in our culture.”- Pamulaan Students
Pamulaan came about as a response to the elders’ dream of an educational programme
rooted in indigenous peoples’ lives, cultures, and aspiration. It offers culturally-appropriate and
relevant pathways of professional training and formation of indigenous youth and leaders.
Pamulaan opened its doors to indigenous students from 19 tribes in 2006. It has
graduated over 200 since 2018. As a tertiary college part of the University of South Eastern
Philippines, it offers degree programs such as: BSc in Indigenous Peoples Education, BA in Applied
Anthropology and Participatory Development, BA in Peace Building and Multi-Cultural Studies,
BSc in Indigenous Agriculture, and BSs in Social Entrepreneurship.
The university curriculum integrates indigenous peoples’ subjects. For example, world
literature is replaced with indigenous peoples’ literature. When it came to the use of English as
language of instruction, students at Pamulaan are required to master their mother tongue before
they are taught in English.
Pamulaan has a heritage center, a museum about indigenous peoples. Students act as
guides to non-indigenous students and other visitors to Pamulaan. Each room in the heritage
center covers the history of many of the tribes in the Philippines; the IPRA law and how it came
about; artifacts used in hunting, music, weaving; traditional attires of various tribes; a herbal area
with examples of natural medicines. One area shows the challenges faced by indigenous
communities: mining, plantation, militarization, and big dams. Also on display are the responses
by NGOs and communities: sustainable agriculture, education, peace-building, water systems,
and the preservation of ancestral domains.
CONCLUSION
Indigenous peoples consistently raise the point that the teacher is a key factor in the
implementation of a culture-responsive education. The researcher agrees with this. However,
when it comes to IP Education, teachers should have more than the usual licensure requirement;
a proper perspective and disposition to relate with indigenous children and youth and their
community, and be adequately equipped to undertake the indigenization of the curriculum and
the teaching-learning process.
The teachers of the Pamulaan Center are model implementers of a culturally-inclusive IP
education curriculum.
The lack of written materials that cover IP struggles is a hindrance for teachers to preserve
and effectively transfer the language. The use of the Mother Tongue-based approach to learning
in the primary years may seem inadequate to achieve mastery of the mother tongue. Hence,
indigenous language must be revitalized in the instructional process.
In order to the address the lack of culturally-inclusive written materials, it is
recommended (a) to document all cultural practices and indigenous language through an in-
depth ethnographic research, and (b) to conduct a comparative analysis of pedagogical practices
among different IP schools.
REFERENCES
Cornelio, J & De Castro, D. (January 2016). The State of Indigenous Education in the Philippines Today.
[research]. ResearchGate. [Link]
Eduardo, J. & Gabriel, A. (May 12, 2021). Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Education: The Dumagat
Experience in the Provinces of Nueva Ecija, and Aurora in the Philippines. [research]. Sage Journals.
[Link]
Halasan, R. (n.d.). How Indigenous People Programs in the Philippines Adapt in a Diverse Society.
[powerpoint slides]. [Link]
IAG (April 2011). The Struggle Continues: Uphold the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. [Policy Brief].
[Link]
Tan-Ocampo, M. & Roberto, F. (December 21, 2019). IP Inclusion in Nationalized spaces of Learning.
[article]. The Guidon. [Link]
space-of-learning
UNESCO International Bureau of Education (n.d.). Interview with UNESCO-IBE Director, Clementina Acedo
[interview transcript]. UNESCO. [Link]
UNESCO (n.d.). Leading SDG 4 – Education 2030.[brief]. UNESCO in Brief.
[Link]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUMS
DepEd (October 25, 2019). DepEd upholds IP learner’s right to Basic Education. [press release].
[Link]
DepEd (2015). Implementing Guidelines on the Allocation and Utilization of the IP Education Program
Support Fund for Fiscal Year 2016. [Order 22 s2016). [Link]
content/uploads/04/DO_s2106_22.pdf
DepEd (August 2011). Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples’ Education Policy Framework.
[Order 62, s2011]. Commission on Human Rights. [Link]
