Guidelines for the case study

1Case Study on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue - Leah E. Abayao, for IAU

Case Study presented by Leah E. Abayao

Mainstreaming Intercultural Education

University of the Philippines BaguioBaguio City, Philippines

1. Introduction

This case study will briefly talk about a continuing intercultural program of the University of the Philippines Baguio. It is a modest attempt to put in perspective working program as an approach to intercultural education in northern Philippines setting. This study will cover the emergence of the program, the changes it underwent to suit conditions and focus on how the program can be situated in intercultural education. The program under study is the Educational Assistance Program (EAP) of the University of the Philippines- Baguio. It started in 1982 as an academic outreach program to incoming college underprivileged students from the different ethnic communities of the Cordillera region in northern Philippines. It was conceived to provide assistance for a culture sensitive educational experience of various college students coming from different culture backgrounds. It was also envisioned as a part of the university extension program to enhance the relationship of the university to the communities surrounding it.

2. Outline of Policy/Practice/Program

The EAP was initiated by faculty members of the University of the Philippines in the early 80s as a University program that will form part of the facultys three-track mission: Teaching, Research and Extension. It was realized that there was a need to reach out to the ethnic groups found in the Cordillera region in which the university is geographically located. It was also created in response to the need to provide a mechanism to response to the growing need for a culture sensitive education of students from the marginal communities in the Cordillera region of northern Philippines. Part of the original plan was to provide a venue for students to have access to college education and get courses that they could apply back to their communities.

There were three components of the program: Academic, Psychosocial and Cultural. The academic component was handled by faculty and the steering committee members. The Psychosocial component was handled by a guidance counselor and the Cultural component was handled by one of the steering committee members in coordination with the guidance counselor. For the academic program, the university had to adjust the courses in order for it to be sensitive to the profile and needs of students coming from different cultural backgrounds, without sacrificing the needs and background of the general student population. Thus the curriculum was enhancing to address the needs of the students. First there were courses that were taught separately to the students from the different cultural backgrounds. Then it was realized that students were not being exposed to urbanized students, which was thought to be limiting. It was segregationist in a sense. So the courses were soon open to students of other backgrounds including those that come from the urbanized culture background in the Philippines. It was successful in that the students were interacting and learning cultures at different levels.

The program continuously changed in terms of implementing strategies and soon changes extended to the program concept per se. Thus part of it was addressing concerns that culture is mediated locally and that the program should also respond to culture representation, for often-ethnic groups are fetishized. The notion of indigenous as in ethnic groups is historically constituted, and thus essentialising it can be counter productive in that it can result to reinforce exclusiveness. The program was working around the perspective that culture is historically situated.

Since it is an institutional program, it was owned and implemented by the university and each year, one faculty is appointed to chair the program (extensions of terms have been practiced) and 6 steering committee members are appointed.

Impacts were varied. Regular students get a chance of exposure to varied cultures, while EAP grantees were getting prepared to urban life without losing their culture formation and enhancing their capacities to understand and respond appropriately to people with other culture backgrounds especially those coming from an urbanized cultural outlook.

The program experienced problem of funding the education of the students, first the program was working with a government scholarship granting institution that shouldered the school fees and minimum allowances of students. Then it shifted to getting funds from within the university. There were also limitations of the courses offered to students, some students are more convinced of getting courses that would allow them to work outside the community especially abroad. The program realized that the vision and mission of the program would have to be readjusted again. This is still being undertaken nowadays. 1.Issues

Some questioned the program for being biased to ethnic affiliation. Accordingly, it overlooks urban poor students. The program was defended by its founders that the goal was really biased on paving way for intercultural understanding within the university and intercultural learning among college students. It was not meant to address poverty alleviation of a larger population. Some also raised the question of tangible and more sustainable outputs from grantees of the program. The founders reacted that the program was envisioned to provide foundations of critical learning with intercultural learning and understanding form one of the valuable practice for university excellence. The ultimate goal should be to restore autonomy of learning, as people become aware of their power to transform structures and regain control over their lives. Thus education programs directed to intercultural education should move further the popular database collection of to varying ideal practices, to using this as a critical catalyst for social transformations with flexible applications in different settings.

4. References and websites

Arun Agrawal (2002) Indigenous Knowledge and the Politics of Classification. In International Social Science Journal. Blackwell Publishing / UNESCO. September 2002.

Arun Agrawal (1995) Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3(3).

Abayao, Leah Enkiwe. Articulating Indigenous Culture in Education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Education, Social Development and Empowerment among Indigenous Peoples and Minorities: An international Perspective. June 16-18, 2004. Ben-Burion University at the Negev, Israel.

www.up.edu.ph

www.upb.edu.ph