GROUP 5 - BERNOULLI

"GomBurZa"
Lian Lee & Eula Macalalad
 Who are the target
readers of the essay?
The target readers of the essay appear to
be the Department of Education as well as
the general public, particularly those
concerned about the state of education and
the importance of Philippine history and
literature in the curriculum.
 What is the main idea
of the essay?
The main idea of the essay is that the education system in
the Philippines has failed in adequately teaching Philippine
history, culture, and literature, and this has negative
consequences for Filipinos. The removal of Philippine history
and literature from the curriculum is seen as detrimental to
the psyche and worldview of students, leading to a
prioritization of foreign history and literature and a potential
captivation of colonial mentality.
 What is the writer's
claim or argument?
The writer's claim is that Philippine history and literature
should be given a prominent place in the education system,
from primary school to university level. They argue for the
restoration of Philippine history and literature in the
curriculum, using texts by authors like Renato Constantino
and Teodoro Agoncillo to present history from the perspective
of the Filipino people.
 What are the pieces of evidence
that the writer presented in
support to his claim?
The lack of emphasis on Philippine history in the K-12 curriculum was evident in a show
where kids couldn't answer basic social studies and history questions.

“This is certainly bad. If K-to-12 is supposed to create employable and job-ready graduates, it
is bad that our graduates are not adequately educated with Philippine history, civics, culture,
and geography. Readiness to work must also mean being a Filipino aware of the country’s
origins.”

“The educational system has failed us. The removal of Philippine history and literature cannot
be good for the psyche and worldview of students. They are being educated and trained to
prioritize and thus elevate in their own minds foreign history and literature.”
 What are the pieces of evidence
that the writer presented in
support to his claim?

The writer proposes teaching the works of Constantino and

Agoncillo to present history from the Filipino perspective.

“The works of Renato Constantino and Teodoro Agoncillo should

be the basic texts taught in schools and spread across the
country. Constantino and Agoncillo provide us a valuable way of
presenting and interpreting history from the point of view of the
Filipino people.“
 What are the counterclaims or
counterarguments presented by the
writer s regards to the issue?
"In the university-level, Philippine literature is no longer a
required subject according to a Commission on Higher
Education decision that the Supreme Court unfortunately
affirmed." They stated that senior high school and college
graduates don't need Philippine History to be a good workers
and professionals. It means that more important subjects like
science, mathematics, and technology should be prioritize in
University level to succeed in the modern workforce and
contribute to the development of the country.
 Do you agree with the writer regarding
the argument about the issue?
The essay has a point that Filipinos should have a basic knowledge of
what our history is because as a Filipino we should be aware of what have
happened in our country's past because it's the grounds of what we are
today. Its good for me to add Philippine History subject to Senior High
today but not in a certain way that it will affect the major subjects greatly
when it comes to grade. I cay say that we just need to partially learn or just
recall what we have learned from elementary. Its important that we as
Filipinos have a certain knowledge of our history even after we graduate.
 Write your evaluation regarding
the merits of the essay as well
as its weakness (if there's any).
The essay argues for the reinstatement of Philippine history
and literature in the K-to-12 curriculum, highlighting the
inadequacy of the current system and proposing practical
solutions. It presents a clear and concise argument, supported by
relevant evidence and examples, and is accessible to a broad
audience. While well-structured, it lacks nuance and could benefit
from a deeper analysis of the underlying issues.
THANK YOU!!