TEST I: Discuss the following.

1. The early education of the Sumerians were considered intensive compared to the
Oriental, Jewish, and Egyptian education. Do you agree to this? Cite proofs to
justify your answer.
- I think that every civilization had their very own intensive way of educating their people.
As to the Sumerians, I believe they indeed had rigorous educational trainings for they
had undergone through the following: (1) they created the first known formal education
system or schools as they were considered the first civilization; (2) they studied
complex grammar, and practiced writing; (3) they were trained to become scribes, or
persons who write books and documents by hand as a profession, and helps keep
track of records; (4) they invented cuneiform; and (5) they’ve been the warp and woof
or basis of the next civilizations in the field of education.

2. Who were the “untouchables” and why were they called such?
- These people were also called “Dalit”, formerly the low-caste Hindu groups or any
persons outside the Caste System of India. Traditionally, the groups characterized as
untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually polluting
activities, of which the most important were (1) taking life for a living, a category that
included, for example, fishermen, (2) killing or disposing of dead cattle or working with
their hides for a living, (3) pursuing activities that brought the participant into contact
with emissions of the human body, such as feces, urine, sweat, and spittle, a category
that included such occupational groups as sweepers and washermen, and (4) eating
the flesh of cattle or of domestic pigs and chickens, a category into which most of
the indigenous tribes of India fell.

Orthodox Hindus regarded the hill tribes of India as untouchables not because they
were primitive or pagan but because they were eaters of beef and of the scavenging
village pigs and chickens. Much confusion arose on this issue because the
unassimilated hill tribes never accepted their relegation to the ranks of the
untouchables, nor did they seem to realize that their status was decided on a purely
behavioral basis.

3. In the early Chinese education, how significant was the teachings of Confucius?
Discuss your answer.
- Confucianism declared the importance of a competent and beneficial relationship
between a government and its people as part of the Five Pillars, which is one of the
ways in which that relationship is maintained and supported is by hearing and
analyzing all voices (past and present in Chinese society). One of those examples is
the work and words of past premiers and presidents, such as Hu Yaobang and Zhao
Ziyang. Both of these leaders, in their own Chinese way, understood the necessity of
working to maintain a beneficial and supportive relationship between the government
and its people, specifically with students. Both gentlemen had survived the excesses
of a radicalized relationship between the government and its people. Confucius’
teachings were very significant to early Chinese as it was a cultural construct in which
to bridge all narratives concerning Chinese society, particularly through the vehicle of
education, and help to lead the country in a proper direction for the next centuries.
Through their lived experiences, they understood the importance of developing and
refining the spirit of Confucianism in the relationship between the government and its
subjects. That spirit must exist in all aspects of Chinese society, especially in Chinese
education.

4. Why was chivalry important during the Feudalism times? In the later period, what
major reasons led to the decline of chivalry?
- In the Middle Ages, chivalry was more than just a name for polite behavior. It was a set
of rules meant to limit the actions of knights and noblemen, particularly in warfare. In
the field of Feudalism, chivalry was very important because of the following reasons:

Fight Only Just Wars

The concept that certain wars were fought for just causes, while others were injustices,
was central to medieval thinking. The very act of war was seen as a means of establishing
truth and justice. After all, God would favor the righteous.
Though the outcome of war was often used to explain who was right, a sense of right and
wrong could determine which wars were acceptable. The church made clear distinctions
about who was in the right, and good knights were meant to fight only on that side.
Be Obedient
The rules of chivalry were as much about enforcing the social and political hierarchy as
they were about limiting violence. A good knight was obedient, fighting at his lord’s
command.
But even in the wars considered most righteous by medieval standards, indiscipline was
rife. At Al Mansourah in 1250, Count Robert of Artois led a charge by the Knights Templar,
in direct contradiction of the orders they had been given. Their quest for glory badly
backfired. Ambushed by Egyptian forces, Count Robert and many of his companions were
killed. The Egyptian counter-offensive that followed undid the conquests the Seventh
Crusade had been making.
Worse still was the example of the Knights Templar at the Siege of Ascalon in 1153. When
a breach was made in the town’s walls, Bernard of Tremblay led forty knights in to take the
city, while their brother Templars prevented any other crusaders from coming through the
gap. Again, a quest for glory led to over-ambition – Bernard and his companions were
captured and killed.
The rules of chivalry had mostly been created to protect aristocratic soldiers, and this
showed in both the existence and the limitations of rules about taking prisoners.
The rules dictated that enemy men-at-arms should be allowed to surrender. Once captive,
they were to be held prisoner safely until their friends and family could pay a ransom for
their release. As a captive, it was the prisoner’s duty to cooperate with their jailers.
This rule was extremely limited, applying only to men-at-arms – the wealthy and heavily
armored elite that included knights, nobles and other better off members of society.
Ordinary infantry, who made up the majority of nearly every army, had no protection under
the rules, and could be killed with impunity.
Even with such a huge exception, the rules were broken many times. As in so many
things, the armies of the Hundred Years’ War set the worst examples. When the French
unfurled their Oriflamme banner at Crécy they were telling both their own side and the
English opposing them that they had no intention of taking prisoners – rule-breaking had
been institutionalized by the French leadership. Decades later, Henry V ordered the
massacre of French captives during the Battle of Agincourt, as he was worried that they
would be released to fight against him.
More courageously, captives sometimes broke the rules. Sir Andrew Moray, a Scottish
leader against Edward I’s invasion, made his name after escaping from English captivity.
Priests, nuns, and churches were all meant to be exempt from the horrors of war.
Christianity, like chivalry, was an important pillar in maintaining the social order. Whether
out of idealism or self-interest, the prominent men who made the rules of chivalry sought
to protect it.
Respect for religion was limited to fellow Christians. Muslim clerics were massacred by
crusaders, and their holy places were sacked following the fall of Jerusalem in 1099.
The treatment of dissenting Christian priests and holy places was equally brutal. When the
Cathar town of Béziers was captured in 1209, the doors of the church of St Mary
Magdalene were smashed open and those inside were dragged out and massacred. On
being asked how to tell heretics from true Catholics among these captives, Abbot Arnaud-
Amaury, the Cistercian abbot-commander and papal legate, reportedly said: “Kill them all,
the Lord will recognize His own.”
Even without the endorsement of the church, the most notable knights of the day often
spilled blood on the holy ground. Robert the Bruce, one of Scotland’s greatest national
heroes, murdered his opponent John Comyn in Greyfriars Church in Dumfries in 1306.
Only an uncertain outcome prevented this turning into a full-blown graveyard battle
between his followers and those of Comyn.
 Spare Civilians
Most rules of war differentiate between combatants and civilians. Chivalry was no
exception. A righteous knight was expected to spare non-combatants – with certain
exceptions, of course.
The most important exception occurred when a town was besieged. Sieges were messy
affairs, and attacking a castle or walled town often left many men dead. To avoid this,
rules existed to encourage peaceful surrenders. If a town or castle gave in voluntarily then
its inhabitants were meant to be spared from any violence. If it held out and was taken by
force, then the attackers were free to kill and pillage. Such looting was common when
English armies took towns during the Hundred Years’ War, though there were also
peaceful surrenders, as at Harfleur in 1415, showing that these rules were obeyed.
But those same English armies were among the most notorious of the time for their
treatment of civilians. They specialized in the chevauchée, a form of armed raid in which
the land was pillaged, goods were stolen, and civilian property destroyed. Long before the
devastating bombing raids of World War Two, total war devastated civilian populations.
During the early Tudor rule in England, some knights still fought for honour and for the good, to
protect women and the poor while some others ignored the ethos. There were fewer knights
engaged in active warfare because battlefields during this century were generally the area of
professional infantrymen, with less opportunity for knights to show chivalry.It was the beginning
of the demise of the knight. The rank of knight never faded, but it was Queen Elizabeth I who
ended the tradition that any knight could create another and made it exclusively the preserve
of the monarch.Christopher Wilkins contends that Sir Edward Woodville, who rode from battle
to battle across Europe and died in 1488 in Brittany, was the last knight errant who witnessed
the fall of the Age of Chivalry and the rise of modern European warfare. When the Middle Ages
were over, the code of chivalry was gone.

5. Two of Greece’s major city states were Sparta and Athens. Each was fiercely
independent and considered each other a rival. In early education, these two city
states also held contrasting views and aims. From this, cite five major differences
between Spartan and Athenian education.

- EDUCATION IN SPARTA
A. Spartan girls learned in school.
B. Spartan boys had to go to military school at the age of 6.
C. Spartan boys were put through a very hard test and if you did not pass the test you
couldn't graduate and became a middle class person.
D. Main purpose of Spartan education was to make their citizens wise and ready for
military conquest to become the fiercest and boldest city-state, and defeat all others.
E. From Sparta we get the motto: The fiercest, boldest, and strongest of all will outlive
all others.

EDUCATION IN ATHENS
A. Athenian girls learned from their home
B. Athenian boys had to go to a normal school at age of 6
C. Athenian boys also attended military school for 2 years at the age of 18 but always
graduated
D. The main purpose of education in Ancient Athens was to make citizens trained in
the arts, and to prepare them for both peace and war.
E. From Athens we get the motto: A sound mind in a sound body.

TEST II: Briefly give insights on the following that relate to early education in the
Philippines and in other countries.

1. Spanish Missionaries- They took the lead in spreading the Spanish culture. The early
Spanish missionaries were not only preachers of the gospel, but also pioneers of western
civilizations. They were founders of towns, engineers of infrastructure projects, agriculturists,
industrialists, architects, social workers, educators, scientists, writers, painters, librarians and
curators, musicians, artists, and obras pias (source of funds).
2. Monastic Education (Aim) - The aim of monastic education is the salvation of individual
souls, a kind of moral and physical discipline based on bodily mortification and worldly
renunciation for the sake of moral improvement.

3. Malolos Constitution- The fundamental law of the Philippine Republic from 1898 to 1901;
The constitution provided for universal and direct elections, the separation of church and state,
compulsory and free education, and equal status for the languages of the Philippine
nationalities. It also precisely delimited the rights of citizens.

4. Monotheism- The belief in one God which is practiced by a huge number of population and
religion, especially Christianity/Islam.

5. Vir Bonus- A European expression that means a very wise person or a good man skilled in
learning; greatest orators/writers of all times; a great scholar.

6. Religion and Education- These are two entities that can never be separated as each one
is largely dependent and influential to each other. To totally understand and immerse to/ the
kind of education every group has, one must take into deep consideration the kind of religion it
is abiding with. Undeniably, religious teachings are always embedded in the curriculum.

7. Civil Service Examination- The Chinese people first discovered and promulgated it ever
since the dynastic times. This is an examination implemented in various countries for
recruitment and admission to the civil service.

8. Colegio de Santo Tomas- This is now University of Santo Tomas. ) It is the first Recollect
school of the world.

9. Hindu Education (Aim) - The greatest aim is to provide good training to young men and
women in the performance of their social, economic, and religious duties. It also aims to
preserve and enrich culture, character and personality development, and cultivation of noble
ideas.

10. Mohammed- Also called “Muhammad”, the founder of Islam. According to Islamic
doctrine, he was a prophet and God's messenger sent to present and confirm the monotheistic
teachings preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.