Introduction
The Philippines has considerable experience in the field of human rights
education. By and large, the exigencies of the time caused thedevelopment of human rights education programs since the 1970s andprobably even earlier. Since 1986, the Philippines has been officiallyrequiring the teaching of human rights in schools.
In consideration of this situation, the Philippines was included in a fourcountry research project launched in 2003 by the Asia-Pacific HumanRights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA). The research projectis a comparative study of education policies and human rights
awareness in India, Japan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Similar to thePhilippines, these countries are considered to have significant education
policies related to human rights education, and have been
implementing human rights education programs in their respective
formal education systems.
The research project is designed to provide an independent and criticalreview of the existing state of human rights education in school
programs in these countries by analyzing how the national education
policy structure supports human rights education, and what impact isthere in terms of human rights awareness of students.
The project has the following specific objectives:
1. To clarify government’s support for human rights education inschools.
2. To clarify problem areas in implementing human rights educationin school programs.
3. To identify measures for effective human rights education in school
programs.
It has two components:
1. Analysis of national policies on human rights education in schools,
and
2. Survey of human rights awareness among secondary school
students in selected schools.

The Philippine study was commissioned to the Center for Research andDevelopment in Education (CREDE) of the Philippine Normal
University. The research in the Philippines started in February 2004.
Research Procedures
The policy analysis component of the project was done throughdocumentary analysis as well as interview of key people in the formal
education field. Purposive sampling of the interviews was employedbecause people were selected on the basis of the role they play inpolicymaking and implementing structures for the teaching of humanrights.
Documents were gathered from a variety of sources including theDepartment of Education (DepEd), Commission on Human Rights(CHR), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), various libraries,
websites of relevant government agencies and universities in thePhilippines, and bookstores. The documents consisted mainly of
executive orders, departmental memorandums, orders and guidelines,
the national school curriculum, and national action plans andprograms.
Interviews were held with officials in the DepEd, CHR, CHED, andnon-governmental institutions/organizations (which are partners of
the government in the promotion of human rights education).
The field survey involved 2,001 secondary school students from 26
selected public and private schools representing four regions of thecountry, namely, the National Capital Region (NCR), Southern
Tagalog Region (Region IV), Eastern Visayas Region (Region VII), and
the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Out of the 26schools, five were selected for focus group discussion (FGD) with 10teachers (2 teachers per school) and 50 students (10 students perschool) participating.
The number and type of schools representing each region are shown inTable 1.

2

Table 1. Number and Type of Schools per RegionRegion
NCR
Region IVRegion VIIARMMTotal

Type of School
PublicPrivate
5434226016
10Total974626The students were in second year secondary school whose ages ranged
from 12 to 15 years. Intact classes were used, each class numbering
more or less 40 students. The classes in both public and private
secondary schools were heterogeneous in terms of mental ability orachievement as students were selected on a “first-come, first-served”
basis and not on grades obtained the year before. See Appendix H for
the list of participating schools.
The research variables included gender, type of school, ethnicity,
geographic classification and region. The 1996 National Statistical
Coordination Board (NSCB) Standard Geographic Code was utilized inclassifying the respondents into categories of geographic classification.
The NSCB (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/default.asp)
lists different municipalities and classify them as rural, urban andpartially urban. The variables and their respective samples are shownin Table 2.
Table 2. The Number of Respondents per Variable
Variable
A. Gender1
MaleFemale
B. Type of School
PublicPrivate

N805
1,160
1,215
786

1

Some of the questionnaires were returned without indicating the gender of the student-respondents. This
resulted in having a total of 1,965 respondents, and not the 2,001 total number of respondents.

3

Table 2. (cont.)

Variable
C. Ethnicity
ChristianMuslim
D. Geographic Location
Urban
Partially Urban
E. Region
NCRIVVII
ARMM

N
1,505
496
1,115
886
715
548
317
421

Three data gathering instruments were used: 1) the human rights
awareness survey questionnaire, 2) FGD questions for teachers, and 3)
FGD questions for students.
The survey questionnaire was developed in consultation with research
partners in India, Japan and Sri Lanka. It consisted of 69 items asfollows:
General Sources of Knowledge on Human Rights
Knowledge of Human Rights Documents
General Human Rights Principles and Issues
Human Rights Situations (Proper Action to Take)
Human Rights Situations (Classification into HumanRights Violation and Non-Violation)
Process of Teaching-Learning, Materials and School
EthosTotal

3 items
6 items
21 items
10 items
9 items
20 items
69 items

The content and format of the survey questionnaire were validated
prior to administration. See Appendix D for the questionnaire.
PNU initially drafted the FGD questions and were eventually adopted
by the research partners and HURIGHTS OSAKA. (See Appendix E andF for the FGD questions)4Letters of request were sent starting in February 2004 to the various
schools identified for the field survey. Follow-up communication
revealed questions and doubts about the project among the schoolheads. Some schools refused to participate for various reasons such asschedule of the survey falling within the review sessions for the final
examination; engagement of the school in many activities; nonparticipation of the school in any research activity as a policy; early
final examination period; absence of Principal/Director; and thePrincipal being new in the school. Some schools were dropped fromthe list for lack of follow-up communication with thePrincipal/Director. Delays in the administration of the survey also
occurred due to the non-availability of school heads who were either
out of town/country or attending conferences in other places. The
DepEd provided the list of schools per region.
The whole duration of the survey administration was from 17
February 2004 until 3 November 2004. In each school, the researchers
informed the students of the purpose of the study and gave general
directions on the survey administration. Questions from the students
about the survey were entertained. They were given a questionnaireeach and instructed to place their answers on the questionnaire itself.
At least an hour was allotted for them to answer the questions, butsome students finished within 30-45 minutes. As soon as they werethrough with the survey, they gave back the questionnaire to theresearchers. FGDs were separately held for some students and someteachers respectively. One researcher was in charge of the FGD forstudents, while another researcher took charge of the FGD forteachers.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey
results. Frequencies and percentages were used to illustrate nominal
data, while means and standard deviations described averages anddispersions. The t-test was used to find out differences between meansof the data which are interval in nature among the variables used. The
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences inmeans among regions and the Duncan Multiple Range Test clustered
the regions in terms of their similarities and separated those whichwere significantly different from the cluster. In effect, the statistics wereused to describe the current awareness of students on human rights
and test differences if any that exist between and among them in termsof such awareness.
5