Bilingual Education Policy

The Philippines was colonized by the United States during the first part of the
twentieth century. Despite the nominal independence given to the country, the Philippine
educational system has been supportive to the maintenance of English in the country
(Martin, 2010) and continued to show large traces of American influence (Tupas, 2004).
This was especially true during the 1970’ when Marcos stated that the use of national
language alone “would seriously impair immediately the acquisition of learning in our
society” (Belton, 1996).

In 1974, the Philippine Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) was introduced. It

was defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the media of
instruction in specific subject areas and aimed at the achievement of competence in both
Filipino and English at the national level, through the teaching of both languages and their
use as media of instruction at all levels (National Commission for Culture and The Arts
2015). The order also expressly allowed for the use of so-called regional languages as
auxiliary languages (Nolasco, 2008). However, the foothold of the English language in
the schools was unshakeable and even after the introduction of this policy, English has
remained the language of power, social mobility and prestige (Bernardo, 2004; Hau and
Tinio, 2003).

In 1985, the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, under the leadership of Dr.
Andres Gonzales and Dr. Bonifacio Sibayan, conducted a nationwide evaluation of the
BEP. A national sample of grade 4, grade 6, and fourth year high school students was
tested (Gonzales, 1994). The evaluation revealed that though the students were exposed
to the BEP, their academic achievement did not increase. This was supported with the
lower scores of the grades 3 and 6 pupils and high school students as well in 2012
National Achievement Test. Moreover, Caoili-Rodriguez (2007) reported that the low
scores of the students in Math and Science prompted the government to re-evaluate
Science and Math education in the country. One of the remedial actions considered was
the introduction of the Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education (Martin, 2010).

Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education

The global spread of English in the last few decades had led to the emergence of
new varieties, multiple linguistic and cultural identities which questioned the traditional
constructs associated to native speaker, standard language, ownership of language and
target language (Sharma, 2008). This pluralistic nature of English language has carried
modifications in the teaching and learning of English. One of the changes is the shift in
language policy which is part of a growing trend around the world to support mother
tongue instruction in the early years of a child‘s education.

Diane Dekker (2010) explains that an effective MTBMLE program introduces

literacy in the first language which transfers to the second language, makes use of what
the learner already knows and develops critical thinking in the first language first before
proceeding to critical thinking in the second language. Moreover, it teaches the subject
matter in the first language for concept mastery, and develops bridge for learning the
second language after the first language is mastered.

DepEd issued Order No. 74, s. 2009, “Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-Based

Multilingual Education (MLE).” This order recognized, “pupils who have learned to read
and write in their first language learn to speak, read, and write in a second language (L2)
and third language (L3) more quickly than those who are taught in a second or third
language first” (Lapus, 2009). As such, the order established MT was to be used in the
first three grades of Philippine schools as a bridge to the national language. In 2012, this
order became law as the Philippine Congress passed Act No. 10533, “Enhancing the
Philippine Basic Education System” (Congress of the Republic of the Philippines,
2012).

An Issue in the Implementation of the MTBMLE

Due to the prestige position that English has played in the country, it is difficult for
Filipinos to reject a traditional practice especially if it is still practiced by the Philippine
society. The early introduction of English and its use as a medium of instruction stem from
the belief in three so-called tenets of language learning (Kirckpatrick, 2012). These are to
learn a second language, one must start as early as possible, the best way to learn a
second language is to use it as a medium of instruction, and the home language gets in
the way of learning a second language.

It is unsurprising that, despite the DepEd orders on MTBMLE, institutions, including

private schools, establish policies prohibiting MT. For instance, the Saviour’s Christian
Academy punished or dismissed students if they speak in their home language (Patria,
2013).

There is resistance in the implementation of the MTBMLE because it is seen as a

threat to the development of English Language Proficiency in the country (Martin, 2010).
In fact, Cebu Representative Gerald Anthony Gullas Jr. has authored a measure to
restore English as a language of interaction in schools (Manila Standard Today, 2013).

Addressing the Issue through SLA Findings

This issue may be addressed using some of the findings of the various studies in
the Second Language Acquisition (SLA). First, Benson (2002) and Dutcher (2003) have
identified that children’s overall educational attainment can be enhanced if they are
taught in their mother tongue in early grades. In contrary to this, teaching in a
dominant language, which is different from children’s mother tongue, in early grades
invites serious challenges in education e.g. high drop-out rates, low educational
attainment and lack of classroom interaction (UNESCO, 2003).

Second, the results of studies which indicated that the use of mother tongue in the
early years of primary school saw students perform better across the board (Walker and
Dekker 2008; Quijano and Eustaquio 2009).
 Third, in the Lubuagan experiment, Walter & Dekker (2011) presented evidences
that the use of the primary language of instruction is not compromising children in learning
the second language, and enhances the mastery of curricular content in the more critical
areas of math and science.

Fourth, Dumatog and Dekker (2003) conducted a study which implemented a First
Language Component Bridging Program. The Lilubuagen was used in primary schools.
The findings revealed that students’ learning outcomes improved in Science, Math,
English and Filipino subjects. Moreover, in 2007, the Lubuagan District Grade 3 students
ranked number one in the Kalinga Division in the 2006 NAT Grade 3 Reading Test. The
scoring the English and Filipino reading tests was 15 to 25 percent higher than all other
Kalinga Division Districts (Dekker and Dekker, 2008).

Fifth, in assessing learning, studies of Cummins (2000) claim that the level of
development of children's mother tongue is a strong predictor of their second language
development. Cummins (2000) found that children with a solid foundation in their mother
tongue develop stronger literacy abilities in the school language which enable them to go
from the known to the unknown using what they have learned about reading and writing
in the first language and their knowledge of oral second language to bridge into reading
and writing the second language.

Sixth, in the study of Krashen (2001), he provides that what the theory implies is
that first or second language acquisition occurs when comprehension of real messages
occurs. Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical
rules and does not require tedious skills. Thus, there is emphasis on meaning and
communication and on accuracy and correctness (Malone, 2004).

Lastly, children who read and write in the mother tongue before learning another
language not only are more successful second language learners but also excel more
quickly than their peers who did not become literate in their first language (UNESCO,
2003).

References

Benton, R.1996. “The Philippine bilingual education program—Education for the masses
or the preparation of a new elite?” In Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics, ed.
M.L. Bautista. Manila: DLSU Press. 308-326.
Bernardo, A. 2004. McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in
Philippine education. World Englishes, 23 (1), 17-31.
Caoli-Rodriguez, R. 2007. “The Philippines Country Case Study.” In UNESCO Country
Profile Commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, Education for
All by 2015: Will we make it? Available Online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org.
Accessed: July 4, 2008.
Cummins, Jim (2000). Bilingual children's mother tongue: Why is it important for
education? Sprogforum Nr. 19, 2001, 15-20. Retrieved from
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.html
Dekker, D. 2010. “What is Mother- tongue based Multilingual Education?” In Starting
where the Children are: A Collection of Essays on Mother-Tongue Based
Multilingual Education and Language Issues in the Philippines, eds. R. M. Nolasco,
F. Datar, and A. Azurin. Quezon City: 170+ Talaytayan MLE Inc. 23-25.
Dekker, G. and Dekker, D. 2008. “The ‘first language’ bridge to Filipino.” Philippine
Daily Inquirer, February 2, 2008. Available online at:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080202116321/The-
first-language-bridge-to-Filipino-and-English.
Dumatog, R. and Dekker, D. 2003. “ First language Education in Lubuagan, Northern
Philippines. “A paper presented at the Conference on Language Development,
Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Minority Communities in
Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, November 6-8,2003. Available online at: http://www-
01.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/dumatog_and_dekker.pdf.
Espiritu, C. 2015. Language Policies in the Philippines. In National Commission for
Culture and The Arts.Available Online at http://ncca.gov.ph/ subcommission-on-
cultural-disseminationscd/language-and-translation/language-policies-in-the-
philippines/. Accessed: April 30, 2015.
Hau C. and Tinio, V. 2003. Language policy and ethnic relations in the Philippines. In
Fighting Words: Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Aisa. Edited by Michael
E. Brown and aumit Ganguly. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 319-349.
Kirckpatrick, A. 2012. English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for
language education. Multilingual Education 1, 29-44.
Krashen, Stephen D. (2001). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
English Language Teaching Series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd
(2001). Retrieved from
http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm. p. 6-7
Malone, Susan E. (2004). Programs in Minority Language Communities: Resource
manual for speakers of minority languages engaged in planning and implementing
mother tongue-based education programs in their own communities. UNESCO
Bangkok, 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.sil.org/acpub/repository/MLE%20Program%20Planning%20manual.p
df
Martin, I. P. 2010. “Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the
Philippines” In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, ed. A. Kirkpatrick.
UK: Routledge.
Nolasco, R. M. 2008. The prospects of multilingual educational and literacy in the
Philippines. In A. B. Bernardo (Ed.), The paradox of Philippine education and
education reform: Social science perspectives. Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Social Science Council.
Patria, K. A. (2013, August 8). Students expelled for speaking in Ilocano. Retrieved from
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/students-expelled-for-speaking-in-ilocano-
023130535.html
Sharma, B.K. 2008. World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca, and NElgish
Pedagogy. Journal of Nelta, 13 (1-2), 121-130.
Tupas, T.R. 2004. The politics of Philippine English: Neocolonialism, global politics, and
the problem of postcolonialism. World Englishes, 23 (1), 47-58.
Walker, S. and Dekker, D. 2008. The Lubuagan mother tomgue education experiment
(FLC). A report of comparative test results. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics
International.