Gummersbach and Education- In Retrospect

(October 1 - 13, 2006)
By Jose Mari Jonathan T. Antonio

Jose Mari Jonathan T. Antonio

It was certainly a privilege to be a part of the 2006 International Academy for Leadership seminar “No Education: No Freedom, No Opportunity” in Gummersbach, Germany. Given the diversity of the participants, i.e., coming from 11 countries with varied fields of interest or expertise and different socio-cultural and economic backgrounds, the subsequent exchange of ideas was truly an enriching experience. Understandably, education was always a common and relevant subject of intellectual discourse. More importantly, it stood as a social concern for most, if not all, of the participants in the seminar. I found a sense of commonality in the participant’s individual aspirations to create opportunities in education. Indeed, there are no distinct boundaries when one talks of education: whether the concern comes from a public school teacher from Zanzibar, a student leader from Ghana, a media person, a political consultant from India or a technocrat from Thailand.

At the onset, allow me to underscore the importance of the online discussion prior to the seminar proper. Except for some minor technical problems, the online phase provided us with a background on the probable directions of the discourse in the plenary and at the same time, oriented us on the profiles of education of the countries represented in the seminar. It also gave us the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with other participants. When we evaluated the online phase, avenues for improvement were pointed out. All in all, I must say the online phase provided the participants the necessary foundation for the intellectual discussions in the Theodor Heuss Academy.

The introductory lecture and discussion on the concepts of liberal education was the fundamental guiding principle in the plenary of the seminar. Given the challenges of the 21st century, the prevailing school of thought emphasized the individual responsibility of the parents and students to decide on matters of education: more choices, privatization of schools and colleges in order to enhance competition, and minimal government interference as a rule. Ideally, I must say that this is the way to go, but the question is do these concepts apply to our country? To a certain extent, we already have institutional recognition of some of these concepts. Education is already a matter that we can independently decide on in principle, but the underlying determinant of how most Filipinos look at education is the socio-economic situation of our country. While it is true that studies have shown positive indications that poverty is not a hindrance to parental decisions on their children’s education and their preference for private institutions, there are complex issues that we need to consider in reforming our educational system.

The simplest but most difficult prerequisite of educational reforms is the political will of our leaders to make radical changes in the system. The private sector is recognized as an indispensable component to achieve liberal educational reforms. I believe that this shared responsibility is highly dependent on the state’s ability to deliver these reforms through enabling laws and other support mechanisms. We also need to consider the social value of education in the Philippines. It is an undisputable fact that most Filipinos have a high regard for education as a vehicle for social and economic stability. However, some say that the idea of minimal, if not complete autonomy, government intervention and an emphasis on competition as a natural outcome of liberalization are completely unthinkable. Conventional wisdom would dictate that a gradual and efficient transition from one stage of reform to another is the key for the stakeholders to appreciate and accept the value of these reforms. Only then will Filipinos be willing to bear their share of responsibilities for a more progressive and liberal educational system.

As to the question of how we can make an initiative that effectively conveys the liberal concepts of education, the answer lies in how we can organize a political base that can influence policy reforms in the country. This is not as easy it looks. Dr. Peter Altmiks in his lecture the “Education Initiative of Friedrich Naumann Foundation – Pro-Kopf,” demonstrated how liberal concepts were being introduced in Germany. Such an initiative could provide us with the platform for advocacy that can be set up here in the local level and hopefully, allow us to move towards the national level. As he pointed out, liberal concepts can be introduced to the stakeholders at the local level that may in their small ways influence policy reforms. In my opinion, the importance of these reforms at the local level is the gradual awakening of the stakeholders regarding liberal concepts of education that promote better quality and supply of education. Hopefully, these reforms will attract key players in education as well as in the government and pave the way for legislative frameworks towards liberal education.

The political component was presented by Wulf Pabst in his lecture the “Education Reform in North Rhine Westphalia (NRW).” Reforms cannot be solely done through outside initiatives. We must have liberal advocates that are duly placed in the state. Accordingly, the reforms in North Rhine Westphalia were made possible because of the liberal politicians elected to the state senate. With their election, the University Freedom Act of NRW adopted a set of frameworks for reforms in the state-run schools such as autonomy, minimal government interference, establishment of University Council, etc. I believe that we can do the same here in the Philippines. We have enough leaders in our legislative branch of government who possess liberal political values to radically reform the area of education. It is a matter of getting our acts together and seriously looking at the situation of our country’s educational system.

The excursion trips to the old town of Wiemar and Dresden were a pleasant retreat from the plenary. As an advocate for responsible and sustainable development, it was an opportunity to appreciate how cultural and historical sites are preserved and protected and how these sites exemplify prescriptive urban planning. One particular comment I have noted from our German-speaking tour guide in Dresden was when he said “contributions of the communist past preserved the historical sites and the well-placed local transportation system around the city.” The aesthetics of the former royal residence of the King of Saxony was an extraordinary sight. How I wish we in the Philippines put the same premium on our historical and cultural sites in such a way that they will be integrated into urban development. Notably, very few local governments have undertaken such emphasis. Vigan and Leyte only come to mind. Unfortunately, there are so many instances of neglect and disregard for our heritage sites around the country in the name of economic development. Both cities we visited also presented good models for responsible and sustainable development.

The visit to the former Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald was emotionally draining. Despite the brief introduction by Dr. Stefan Melnik about the gloomy historical period of Germany, nothing could prepare us enough when finally arrived at the very site of Nazi cruelty and Germany’s totalitarian past. Many of the participants echoed the same question over and over again, “how could this have happened in recent human history?” The thought that an estimated 50,000 people perished in Buchenwald was beyond my understanding. I could not comprehend our fellow beings’ tremendous potential to perpetrate such killings. One particular discussion with a fellow participant that I found noteworthy was his unsettled emotion about the idea of preserving the concentration camps. We had a lengthy discussion about the pros and cons about the subject and in the end, we reached a mutual consensus that perhaps this is to remind us about the dark side of German history and hopefully, create a lasting conviction that this kind of cruelty will never happen again in human history.

One of the interesting site visits in Dresden was the lecture and tour about the works of the Federal Commissioner for the Records of State Security Service of the Former German Democratic Republic (GDR). The records that they have recovered and reconstructed are simply remarkable. One particular file presented to us contained the secret service profile of an individual and his collaborator. This information is a way of giving access to the former citizens of the GDR while at the same time providing other information about the collaborators. As I was listening to the lecture, I realized a contrast to our own history. When the Marcos dictatorship was overthrown, our leaders then would have had the tremendous opportunity to recover and retrieve files that would have given us the necessary information about the military atrocities. We never got the opportunity and the cases of those who disappeared remain unsolved. Perhaps the difference between the two events was the complete abandonment of the State Security Service during the fall of Communist GDR while when the Marcos regime was toppled, several prominent personalities in the military remained in power.

The seminar was a welcome respite from my work. The company with 25 other participants for almost two weeks in the Theodore Heuss Academy was an educational experience. I remember the intellectual discussions with Dr. Stefan that seemed to continue without end, and Dr. Jurgen’s causal conversations that were mostly dominated by our passion for golf. I still owe him free golf lessons after our golf game in the picturesque countryside of Gummerbach. I hope I can do that for him when he comes to visit the Philippines one day.

I also relish the new found friendships and rich exchange of ideas with Somphon, Asish, Salih, and Yeen Seen. Lastly, the camaraderie of the eight member strong, genial participants from team Philippines made my stay most memorable: Dr. EC, my gratitude for the pleasant company; Professor Mennen, the leader of the group especially during the casual breaks; Angelico, my admiration of your good work at Department of Education; Mae, my good wishes for your Germany connection; Rose, a distinguished writer, who knows her craft well; Rianne, my charming good friend from Cebu; and Ina, the youngest and our inspiration. My first trip to Europe couldn’t have been more meaningful without you guys.

At the end of the day, the seminar was not about what should be the ideal liberal educational system or whether the same must necessarily be adhered to in order to achieve the needed reforms in education. But there was definitely a common recognition among the participants of the need to push for a liberal agenda in education regardless of our differences in nationality, culture, religion, and gender. The same recognition defines our conviction to start making a difference in our own small ways as advocates of liberal education.