Implementing Project Citizen in the Philippines: The role of indigenized civic education discourse in policy borrowing

• In Event: Teacher classroom practices and students' civic learning

Abstract

Purpose/Objectives:
The purpose of this research was to examine how and why a non-governmental organization (NGO) called the Philippine Center for Civic Education and Democracy (PCCED) chose to implement a United States-authored civic education curriculum called Project Citizen. Specific research questions which guided the study were: What is the PCCED and how did it come about? What is its relationship to the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd)? And, how has Project Citizen been specifically adapted for, and implemented in, the Philippines?
The primary focus of this paper is to discuss how Project Citizen was implemented in and contextualized to the Philippines, with a focus on the role of localized discourse as a mechanism of indigenization.
Theoretical Framework:
A comparative education theoretical framework informed my work generally through themes such as global to local, policy to practice, and internationalized education reform. More specifically, I employed the policy borrowing model developed by Phillips and Ochs (2003) as a lens through which to view the implementation of Project Citizen.
Research Design/Sources:
I employed a qualitative case study method (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2002) using participant interviews, observations, and documents as the main sources of data. I spent two separate two-week periods in the Philippines at various sites and locations including: the PCCED Manila headquarters, the Department of Education, the University of Asia and the Pacific, Las Piñas High School, and the Ayala Foundation, Inc. headquarters. The participants in this study included university faculty, PCCED staff, teachers, Project Citizen alumni, and members of partner organizations.
Results/Conclusions:
In the current educational context in the Philippines, which includes many of the characteristic reform initiatives common to neoliberal policies, the role of citizenship education has been marginalized (Mendoza & Nakayama, 2003; PCCED, 2008). In response, the PCCED is attempting to address this marginalization through grassroots initiatives within local communities, and through supplementing the formal state-mandated curriculum with materials that foster and cultivate democratic knowledge, principles, and behavior (PCCED, 2008, 2013).
PCCED’s implementation of Project Citizen in the Philippines is distinctive in several ways. First, although Project Citizen has not been officially adopted into the formal curriculum by the DepEd, it has been allowed to operate as an afterschool activity. Project Citizen’s quasi-official status of neither being endorsed nor rejected by the DepEd has both pros and cons. Ironically, this borrowed Western program functions as a form of resistance to the latent colonial structure of Filipino institutions like the national Department of Education. Second, with minimal incentives, the PCCED has successfully recruited a dedicated assemblage of volunteers and teachers willing to perform significant additional work outside of their official duties in order to implement Project Citizen. Lastly, I identified certain themes of indigenized civic education discourse that are used as counter measures to the perceived cultural challenges of instilling democratic behavior. This discourse also serves as a mechanism of synthesis within the indigenization stage of policy borrowing, and secures practitioner dedication for the adopted program.
Significance:
It is important to provide support to educational systems of countries that believe there is a need to protect civic education curriculum to help build a sustainable democratic culture (Camicia & Franklin, 2011; PCCED, 2008; Wainaina et al., 2011; Yu, 2005). One way to accomplish this is by introducing and recounting approaches about how to implement citizenship education programs through supplemental material that is progressive, experiential, and indigenized to a local context. Several studies (Antal & Easton, 2009; Griffith, 1990; Kim & Boyle, 2012; Mills, Schechter, Lederer, & Naeher, 2011; Myers, 2007; Shultz & Guimaraes-Iosif, 2012; Wainaina et al., 2011) have been conducted that demonstrated innovative ways to use active citizenship education “to resist destructive global agendas” (Shultz & Guimaraes-Iosif, 2012, p. 241). Or using Apple’s (2006) terminology, it is important “to interrupt” the neoliberal influence on education reform by promoting “thick” concepts of democracy through participatory and active citizenship education.

Author

• Tanya Walker, University of Georgia