Arnold Christopher L. Saulong
INTRODUCTION
The implementation of a public education system is perhaps one of, if not the most notable
contributions of the American colonial era. While social perception today regarding this historical
development is generally positive, it is pertinent to understand that it affected men and women
differently. Certainly, it is impossible to discuss the effects of American public education on women
without contrasting it to the experiences of men. Pre-colonial gender notions also elevate this
discussion. Additionally, the American public education system cannot be analyzed in a vacuum.
Acknowledging similarities and delineations with the Spanish public education system contributes to a
more holistic understanding of its effects on the social and economic responsibilities of women then,
and even until today. This essay will analyze three secondary sources and their contributions to the
discourse on this historical topic: “Table Wars: Home Economics Becomes an Accidental Advocate for
Philippine Culture, 1904-1922”; “Filipinising Colonial Gender Values: A History of Gender Formation in
Philippine Higher Education”; “American Colonial Education and Its Impact on the Status of Filipino
Women”.
Table Wars: Home Economics Becomes an Accidental Advocate for Philippine Culture, 1904-1922
Felice Prudente Sta. Maria writes on a domestic science known as Home Economics, labeled as
the subject “Housekeeping” in Philippine public schooling during the American colonial period, was
implemented in order to foster the interest of the Filipinos in the materialistic, as well as build on the
power of the Filipina in household dynamics. In adapting the American public education system for the
Filipino context, there was a focus on English education through language and literature classes and
culture studies were not prioritized.1 Relevant subjects such as physiology, hygiene, and epidemic
diseases were studied regularly.2 The integration of domestic science in education was lobbied for in
America, particularly through The American Home Economics Association founded through the Lake
Placid Conference.3 Home economics was supported in order to supplement the existing power and
influence of women in the Philippines, and steps were taken in order to develop close involvement
between teachers and pupils without making students feel as if American customs were being shoved
1
Sta. Maria, Felice Prudente, “Table Wars: Home Economics Becomes an Accidental Advocate for Philippine
Culture, 1904-1922,” In Manila: Selected Papers of the 20th Annual Manila Studies Conference July 28-29, 2011,
edited by Marya Svetlana Camacho, 35. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts, 2012.
2
Ibid, 35.
3
Ibid, 36.
down their throats.4 The American education system attempted to fuse American and Filipino cuisine,
although natives retained their strong preference for more familiar versions of local dishes.5 Another
facet of housekeeping education was to apply the domestic science in preparing school lunches.6 As
modern kitchen technology arrived in the Philippines, the American food they were made to create
became more common in native meals, but they were ultimately less preferred.7 Overall, the domestic
science of home economics accomplished its goals to cultivate patriotic and competent women while
contributing to a deeper cultural appreciation for Filipino cuisine, thus serving as a form of nationalistic
expression.8
The more educational aspect of the text cited materials created for the instruction of Filipino
students in Home Economics under American public education. These include Housekeeping: A Textbook
for Girls in the Public Intermediate Schools of the Philippines, Bulletin 35: Housekeeping and Household
Arts — A Manual for Work with the Girls in the Elementary Schools of the Philippines, and Housekeeping:
A Textbook for Girls in the Public Intermediate Schools of the Philippines. The first was written by Susie
Butts and the next two by Alice M. Fuller. The more culinary aspect of Home Economics included various
sources containing recipes or other important information. Some were written by Filipinos, including
Aklat ng Pagluluto: Hinango sa lalong bantog at dakilang aklat ng pagluluto sa gawing Europa at sa
Filipinas, na pauwa nasusulat sa wikang kastila, at isinatagalog ng boong katiyagaan ni Rosendo Ignacio,
Condimentos indigenas, La cocina filipina: Coleccion de formulas practicas y posibles en Filipinas para
comer bien, and others. Reports regarding data about education or other related information include
reports from the Department of Education of the Republic of the Philippines and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Sta. Maria focused more on the perspective of more powerful groups or individuals in the
discussion of colonial education, particularly the subject of Home Economics, in this paper. That is to say,
most of the insights, experiences, and source materials included in the text were from American
educators and authorities. The citation of the General Superintendent of Education, Alice M. Fuller, Frank
L. Crone, Susie M. Butts, W. W. Marquardt, and American teachers in general exhibit this. This manner of
approach towards the topic is still apparent when Filipino sources or organizations are mentioned. Pura
Villanueva de Kalaw and K. Martinez Printing Company were some notable examples, but they could be
4
Ibid, 37-38.
Ibid, 39.
6
Ibid, 45.
7
Ibid, 47.
8
Ibid, 48.
5
considered some form of authority on the discourse regarding cuisine and its effects on Filipino women
and Filipino nationalism. Even sources coming from bureaus in Manila are considered to be from
authoritative institutions. Sta. Maria’s mention of Francisca Tirona as a case study of sorts, while a good
substantive, still adopted a more external view on her life experiences rather than a more personal
analysis of her perception of the prevailing social norms within and without the public education system.
One clear missing element of this text is the consolidation of the opinions or life experiences of
the demographic of girls who were educated in housekeeping. While the goals and objectives of the
implementation of home economics were discussed in great detail, the concrete effects of this domestic
science on the job opportunities of Filipino women and their role in the Filipino household was left out
to some extent besides saying that food preferences became more apparent.
At face value, the proclamation of Home Economics as one of many drivers of Filipino national
identity may be an ambitious claim. However, discussing the pedagogy behind Home Economics and its
subsequent effects on Filipino women from a macro perspective does mechanize how this comes to be.
The description of the pedagogy of American public education serves to illustrate the positive goals of
Home Economics despite any possible criticisms. Moreover, the introduction of American cuisine to the
Philippines through modern kitchen technology that was also used in education and the manner in
which it was received by the local population highlights the preference of Filipinos for their own food. It
goes without controversy to say that food is an essential part of any culture, and in creating this narrative
that focuses on the Filipino’s reactions to Home Economics and American food despite institutional
efforts and structural reasons to favor American food, Sta. Maria was able to provide a believable link
between the domestic science she wrote on and Filipino culture.
American Colonial Education and Its Impact on the Status of Filipino Women
Education in the American colonial period influenced the economic participation of women and
their entry into non-domestic activities according to Carolyn Israel Sobritchea, Ph.D. There were upsides
and downsides to the public education system for Filipino women. It increased literacy levels and
provided opportunities for women in poor families to escape traditional gender-related roles. It also gave
middle-class Filipino women the tools to fight in the legal and political landscape to assume more
obligations in public life. However, public schools did not actively promote gender equality and even
maintained patriarchal ideas and notions of gender introduced to the Philippines in the Spanish colonial
period. The opportunities birthed by American public education were not able to equalize them with
men at the time. Sobritchea sums up the main argument of the text as follows: “This article argues that
the kind of education the Filipino women received during the American colonial period primarily prepared
them to respond to the demands of the colonial bureaucracy and economy.”9
The status of Filipino women in relation to their education in the American occupation is
discussed in a more political and economic manner. There is heavy use of numerical data in the paper, as
well as relevant historical information. The author’s discussion on the Spanish legacy of education aims
to clear up misconceptions regarding the context of the Philippines’ education system before the arrival
of the Americans. In accordance with an education decree passed in 1863, a mandatory system of
education, state support for learning materials, and various specialized schools in manila and Iloilo were
established in the country.10 Sobritchea utilizes the works of other individuals in the academe to explain
why the Spanish education system was, for the most part, unsuccessful. Mendoza-Guanzon, as cited in
the text, explains that children opted to focus on their responsibilities outside school because of the
emphasis placed on memorization and the use of corporal punishment. Moreover, Fresnoza was cited to
show how education was largely about studying religion and Spanish was reserved for sons of the upper
class or principalia.11 Other authors were cited to show the large disparity between education offered
for women and education offered for men at the time. Generally, more intellectual pursuits such as
“philosophy, Latin, Greek, physics, metaphysics, logic, ethics, cannon law, Roman law, and others” were
not part of the women’s curriculum.12 Spanish education also policed the sexual behaviors of women,
promoting subservience to men and chastity.
Transitioning into American colonial education, Sobritchea cites Constantino to flesh out the
reasoning behind the public education system in the Philippines: the pacification of the population to
quell unrest in response to American presence.13 Several institutions were cited numerous times
throughout the text: the Philippine Islands’ Bureau of Education, the Department of Public Instruction,
and the Philippine Republic’s Bureau of Census and Statistics. The Bureau of Education is then cited as a
primary source and Hayden as a secondary source to show that the proliferation of public education
became an instrument of control, preparing Filipinos for “democratic ‘self-government’ and develop in
them a deep sense of patriotism and unity”, which could not be done while the population was illiterate
and unable to communicate with each other through a common language, namely, English.14 In 1912, the
9
Sobritchea, Carolyn I., “American Colonial Education and Its Impact on the Status of Filipino Women,” Asian
Studies 28 (1990): 70, https://tuklas.up.edu.ph/Record/IPP-00000145711.
10
Ibid, 71.
11
Ibid, 72.
12
Ibid, 73.
13
Ibid, 74.
14
Ibid, 75.
Bureau of Education organized the School of Household Industries, geared towards refining the skills of
women related to export products.15
The effects of Act 74, which was passed on January 21, 1901, was described using information
from the Department of Public Instructions.16 Reforms made by Doctor David Barrows after his
appointment to General Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction, particularly in terms of
restructuring the education system for primary and intermediate courses, included the prescription of
industrial work, differentiation on the basis of occupations, and uniform examination as described by the
Bureau of Education.17 In 1929, the Department of Public Instruction specified that secondary education
should teach students skills that would, in essence, make them more aware and more able to contribute
to the needs of the market.18
The Bureau of Census and Statistics was cited when Sobritchea talked about the growth of
private tertiary education, the literacy rates of females and males, and school enrollment. Moving into
the economic discussion, she also cited the aforementioned bureau to show various data regarding
registered professionals in different occupations and the male and female participation in these career
paths, and the average annual income of male and female professionals. The Philippine Republic was
cited for economic information as well, such as the contributions of farmers in the production of export
crops.19
Other surveys conducted at the time were also utilized by Sobritchea. The Economic Survey
Report of 1929 was also cited as a primary source regarding the “very low attendance of females in
agricultural schools.”20 The Monroe Report, headed by Dr. Paul Monroe, was referenced because it
assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the educational system in 1924.21
It is plain to see that Sobritchea was incredibly thorough and efficient in using primary sources to
build her argument. To be frank, it is difficult to find relevant areas of discussion that were not included
in the text. First, the notable milestones in the educational system were talked of in great detail.
Important reforms were not left out in the paper. Second, data and statistics from the period of time
Sobritchea focused on were included in the text. Third, even third party sources such as the surveys cited
were used in the text. The political and social implications of all this information were also explained by
15
Ibid, 77.
Ibid, 75.
17
Ibid, 76.
18
Ibid, 79.
19
Ibid, 89.
20
Ibid, 79.
21
Ibid, 82.
16
the author. Men were impacted in a profoundly different way than women, and women of lower social
class also had a vastly different experience from women of the elite class in the education system of
America. Economic data was used to solidify the position that women, while they benefited in some
ways from public education, were given these skills in order to increase their economic viability in
colonial institutions and still lacked equal footing with their male counterparts. If there were something
that may have been left out, it is perhaps clearer standards of gender parity. Women’s power in the
family unit is mentioned in passing, but not expounded on significantly. While this may be a different
area of discussion entirely, it does factor into the power dynamics of gender.
Sobritchea chose the variety of sources she used in her paper because they give a
comprehensive view on the historical context of the American public education system. In tackling the
topic from various points of view, an image of opportunity, struggle, and inequality is pieced together.
Overall, the author’s decision to highlight quantitative data and couple it with qualitative analysis
allowed the argument to come to fruition.
Filipinising Colonial Gender Values: A History of Gender Formation in Philippine Higher Education
M. Leal R. Rodriguez says that universities, an institution that is heavily built on foreign
foundations in the Philippines, may preserve or threaten gender relations. Colonial history and colonial
values retained in the present complicate notions of gender, but are overlooked. The primary
contribution of this article is philosophizing Philippine education by combing through the history of the
country’s education system. Several concepts are key in framing historical writing from the Spanish and
American colonial periods to contextualize the hierarchy of gender: “[a] threefold model of gender
structures, relations of power, [and] production and cathexis (emotional attachment)”.22 Religion’s heavy
influence on Spanish colonial education explains the policing of sexuality of education institutions, while
gendered courses in the American colonial period account for the feminisation of certain careers and
fields of study. Philippine fraternities contribute to harmful practices related to manhood, and private
education plays a part in the perpetuation and retention of power among the elite.
It may be foolish to say that this paper takes a retrospective view on colonial education (since
essentially all historical text retrospectively views a given historical topic), but it is incredibly clear that
the text was written in contemporary times. The present situation of education and notions of gender is
contextualized using historical narratives and data drawn from colonial education and even pre-colonial
22
Rodriguez, A. M. Leal R., “Filipinising Colonial Gender Values: A History of Gender Formation in Philippine Higher
Education,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, October 12, 2022, 1,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2128760.
times. Moreover, there is brief mention of Muslim education, and even the Philippine Constitution,
suggesting a more conceptual approach towards the topic.
To illustrate the described view, the primary sources can be consulted. While numerous
secondary sources of information are used by the text, the selection of primary sources is still indicative
of the overall approach of the paper. From the get go, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was
cited in order to contextualize the contemporary problem. Moreover, the Philippine Constitution was
cited, serving as evidence for the more philosophical take on the issue.
The overall approach of the paper and the primary sources utilized inevitably affect the
information that is highlighted and left out by the text. There is an overwhelming amount of secondary
sources utilized by the paper. This is perhaps a sensible decision in the substantiation of the present state
of education in the Philippines and notions of sex and gender. Naturally, in order to philosophize the
history of colonial education in the Philippines, academic analyses of historical events and systems are
necessary. In the majority of circumstances, the exclusive use of primary sources will be insufficient for
this purpose. For example, in order to understand how the Spanish colonial era affected contemporary
sexual norms, the concept of ‘conquista espiritual’23 described by Abinales and Amorsolo and the
religious institution known as beaterios24 mentioned by Camacho needed to be discussed. The section on
the Illustrados illuminates the topic of masculinity in the Filipino identity, a phenomenon that carried
over even to the American colonial period. Owen is mentioned by the author to illustrate that
masculinity, particularly that of the elite Filipinos, became an essential component of the national
identity, and Owen even draws synonymy between Filipino manhood and this identity.25 While it may
only be tangentially related to the overarching topic, the author also cites Quijano’s concept of Cultural
Europeanisation, the ultimate goal of the Illustrados.26
Filipino masculinity in the American colonial period was heavily shaped by the justifications the
colonists used for benevolent assimilation. Hoganson, as cited by the author, posited three different
views on Filipino men: as savages, as child-like, and as feminine.27 University then became the
instrument that the Americans used to foster the determination of the Filipino men to prove themselves
on the battlefield. Even the symbolism of rituals such as hazing are described in this text to show how
23
Ibid, 3.
Ibid, 6.
25
Ibid, 6.
26
Ibid, 6.
27
Ibid, 8.
24
Western manhood found its way into the Philippine context, and McCoy was cited for this.28 The cultural
effects of the Japanese occupation and education are also included in this paper.
In general, it is clear to see that the kind of information needed in order to prove the argument
of the author are more easily found in secondary sources, which lead to primary sources being used
sparingly. This is not a hit to the author or the paper’s credibility, but the lack of primary sources
disallows the paper from truly concretizing the compelling points made by Rodriguez. Certainly, the
strategic use of rhetoric and existing frameworks to understand the evolution of education, sex, and
gender throughout the Philippines’ colonial history was effective in forwarding the message that the
history of colonialism is a necessary factor that must be considered when reforming the modern
education system. Still, it cannot be ignored that fundamental portions of the argument would have
greatly benefited from a more in depth illustration of the cultural and social phenomenon included in the
paper with the use of firsthand accounts or more nuanced historical data.
Comparative Analysis
A unique perspective is brought to the table by each of the authors and their works. There are
some similarities and differences in viewpoints, style of approach towards the topic, and specific
framework used.
Sta. Maria differs from the two other authors discussed in this paper because she held a positive
view on American colonial education, particularly Home Economics. Though it would be a stretch to say
that Sta. Maria’s work reflects a full acceptance of the successes of the public education system, it is safe
to say that she believed it was successful in its goals, as evidenced by the last portion of her paper
entitled “Patriotic Tables”.29 On the other hand, Sobritchea and Rodriguez took a more critical point of
view towards public education in the American period. Despite certain concessions being made, such as
including statistics regarding rising literacy rates among Filipino students, both authors described
negative impacts public education had on women, or at the very least shared the belief that equitable
gender practices were not promoted.
In terms of the style of their approach, Sta. Maria and Sobritchea are similar in the sense that
they both utilized information that could be accessed during the American occupation. On the other
hand, Rodriguez used primary sources sparingly, although the more philosophical approach that was
taken in the paper may have heavily influenced this decision. Sta. Maria took a more narrow approach to
28
29
Ibid, 8.
Sta. Maria, 47.
the topic. Instead of introducing breadth into her paper, she focused on the topic of Home Economics.
On the other hand, Sobritchea and Rodriguez talked about the effects of the education system as a
whole.
As for their specific frameworks, there is some level of overlap. In fact, Rodriguez cites
Sobritchea in her paper. The framework that becomes most apparent through reading is perhaps
Rodriguez’s. There is a clear philosophical approach to the problem that describes important social
phenomena and supplements the analysis with some factual evidence. Sobritchea takes a more political
approach towards the topic, describing educational reform throughout the paper. Moreover, economic
statistics are used to draw correlations (or lack thereof) with educational attainment. Sta. Maria focuses
more on the cultural aspects of education, particularly in terms of cuisine, which was developed through
the subject of Home Economics.
Contributions to Discourse on Historical Topic
Sta. Maria offers a unique perspective on Home Economics, an essential part of American
colonial education. Instead of focusing mainly on pragmatics, the effects of this part of education is
explored in the context of national identity and cultural preferences. Sobritchea lays much fundamental
groundwork for the educational and economic gender inequality that prevailed in spite of significant
changes to public schooling. Rodriguez takes a deeper look into how notions of sex and gender were
impacted by education throughout the years. These texts allow American colonial education to be given
credit where it is due, but give definitive reasons to avoid rosy retrospection.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rodriguez, A. M. Leal R. “Filipinising Colonial Gender Values: A History of Gender Formation in Philippine
Higher
Education.”
Educational
Philosophy
and
Theory, October 12, 2022, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2128760.
Sobritchea, Carolyn I. “American Colonial Education and Its Impact on the Status of Filipino Women.”
Asian Studies 28 (1990): 70–91. https://tuklas.up.edu.ph/Record/IPP-00000145711.
Sta. Maria, Felice Prudente. “Table Wars: Home Economics Becomes an Accidental Advocate for
Philippine Culture, 1904-1922.” In Manila: Selected Papers of the 20th Annual Manila Studies
Conference July 28-29, 2011, edited by Marya Svetlana Camacho, 34–52. Manila: National
Commission for Culture and the Arts, 2012.