Implementing Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE):

First Language Component-Bridging Program (FLC-BP)

Gloria D. Baguingan, Ph.D.

Presented to the Professional Education Department

Saint Mary’s University
December 4, 2010

Seminar on Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE)

Greetings!

When public schools were opened at the beginning of the last century, rich and poor
Filipinos were equal. Practically all who went to school knew how to write and speak English.
Rich and poor people had equal chances of success. English was the great equalizer (Sibayan,
1994). With this equalizer, many from the poor escaped from the grips of poverty and became
the first leaders of the country. The public schools were called the University of the Masa. The
government almost employed all who learned English. The bright ones regardless of status were
sent as pencionados to USA, whose scholarships were paid out of Phil. Government funds. They
came back to lead in the development of this country, both as public and private workers.

Today, the English language has become the separator (Baguingan, 1996). The high
quality of English in the public schools of the past is now a myth. Good English is available
mainly to expensive private schools. English today separates the rich and the privileged from the
masses.

The rise of English as the medium of instruction in the schools has become the favorite
subject of controversy in this country. Great deals of education failures as well as social and
political misbehavior in the country have been attributed to the use of English in the schools
(Manuel, 1974). When the Thomasites, the first American teachers introduced mass education
for all Filipinos, they decided to use English as the medium of instruction in the past century,
because it was the language they spoke, Filipinos were multi-lingual speakers with no
communicative competence in one language in that era; meaning, they were speaking hundreds
of languages. The English language is a foreign language because it doesn’t belong to Neolithic
culture that existed in southwest Taiwan and spread south from there into the Batanes Islands
and northern Luzon (Peter Bellwood in Reids, 2008).

The educational act of 1940, under the Commonwealth, required that a national language
be developed out of the existing Philippine major languages with Tagalog as the basis (Gonzalez,
1988). Several studies were done and they found out that learning and memory retention were
improved when the students were taught in their native language. This has influenced DECS in
implementing its bilingual policy number 1977, series of 1974.

DECS, orders number 25, series 1974 entitled, “Implementing Guidelines for the Policy
on Bilingual Education” defines the separate use of Filipino and English as media of instruction

1
in particular subject areas; English for the subjects of English, math and science, and all soft-
disciplines will be taught in Filipino, implying that the national language was not yet an
intellectualized language for use in science and math (Sibayan, 1994). What does this say? This
means that our Filipino languages are incapable of expressing scientific and mathematical
concepts. To this day, leading linguists in this country still say that the Filipino language is not
yet intellectualized. Theses (Evangelista, math Grade IV 1994; Balahiw, math Grade I 2006;
Famorca, math Grade V 2008; Carag, science Grade IV 2008) written at the NVSU, suggest that
the use of the mother tongue yielded significant results as compared to the traditional mode of
instruction in all classes of this country. What these studies imply is that we don’t have to reach
the level of intellectualization of Iloko to make math and science teaching highly understood by
our own students.

A study of the Impact Evaluation of the New Elementary School Curriculum (NESC) in
1989-90 revealed that the bilingual education policy implementation of 1974 indicated that a
code-switching methodology was used by the teachers as their mode of teaching (Gonzales,
1988).

This is how a code-switching methodology is done. When a teacher teaches science and
math, she speaks English first, and then she translates her English to the vernacular for
momentary convenience. The mother tongue provides quick access to the main concepts of the
lesson. Teachers who use this however, only provide partial explanations. This is what they call
Taglish mode of instruction, Enggalog if you will, or a mix-mix method, put it locally… a halo-
halo type, which is a short hand explanation of complex ideas.

My objection to the mix-mix/halo-halo is that the ideas, concepts or processes are

communicated in isolation and not seen as a thread warped into the whole lesson (Baguingan,
2001). Teachers almost always go from English to the mother language and to and fro, further
limiting access to the rich description and linguistic details that English speakers have access to
daily, and which using the FLC-BP does the same. As a result, students accumulate slightly
twisted facts, half analyzed information and only bits and pieces of whole concepts. The long
term consequences are obvious – students only half comprehend the concepts of the curriculum.

I am re-explaining the FLC-BP in teaching the basics. Later, I will present on power
point salient facts of the FLC-BP.

This paper is one implementation of the bilingual policy of 1974; and the future of the
MTBMLE if it will not pronounce a rigid “know-how” to implement it. This approach is called
the First Language Component-Bridging Program (FLC-BP). Historically, the FLC-BP was born
in Hungduan, Ifugao in the late 1980’s and it was born out of a frustration of a District
Supervisor over the performance of his district. They went into this study in partnership with
Summer Institute of Linguistics. In the years of its implementation, the experimental classes
have had significant results over the control classes. Because I am a protégée of SIL, I closely
watched the studies in Ifugao. The study of Ifugao made me an avid advocate of the FLC-BP. In
1993, I wrote a curriculum in Graduate School of the NVSU called MEd with specialization in
Language, Reading and Numeracy. The FLC-BP is a feature of the LRN specialization. Since
then, we have expanded the program viable for all levels, pre-school, grade I, primary level,

2
elementary and secondary levels. As a sequel of the M.Ed LRN, NVSU offers a Ph.D. Program
in Bilingual Education. The first batch of this course should graduate in 2012, and they are with
us today.

The FLC-BP is not a vernacularization program. The First Language Component (FLC)
as part of the name implies that the first language is just one element of the teaching-learning
program and is never isolated from the teaching-learning experiences in the two Mediums of
Instruction, Filipino or English. The first language is used as a bridge to learning a second or
third language. The reading and language skills learned in the first language are then transferred
to a second language, Filipino/English.

The FLC-BP takes a perspective that alerts us about forms of implementing bilingual
education in other countries, demonstrating an approach viable for our own system in education
articulating national policy; how practice and implementation can be guided by our
understanding of language learning theories and practice.

The effect of the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) of 1974 is complex. Today, there are
a lot of squabbles among educators about bilingual education as being the root cause of the
deterioration of quality education. Achieving quality education is affected by a lot of factors.
One crucial factor is the Medium of Instruction (MOI). The Presidential Commission on
Educational Reforms (PCER) has identified the Medium of Instruction to be fundamental in the
teaching-learning process. It has recommended that the MOI be in the lingua franca of the region
if it is not possible to use the mother tongue. Of course, it follows that the language used in the
instructional materials is the same.

The focus of the First Language Component-Bridging Program (FLC-BP) book series
(Iloko) a first language (FL) and a Lingua Franca (LF) of Region 02/CAR is a key to reaching a
diversity of learners from varied cultural background and language.

Since many concepts already exist in the first grade child’s knowledge structure, part of
the educational process is to teach a child to be able to THINK about those concepts and their
relationships. The most efficient and effective way to teach a child to think in the early stages of
his life is through his first language. Through his first language, all concepts and skills learned in
his FL are bridged to English.

Even though the teacher will need to spend time in bridging decoding skills to English,
the pupils will have foundational decoding skills upon which to add the different and new sound
symbols and patterns.

One final important statement about the FLC-BP Books and their use is that the author of
these books do not intend that these instructional materials be the end itself but will be the
transition materials to get the pupils to acquire reading skills as fast as they can so that they are
transited to the English-only curriculum.

The FLC bridging program and instructional materials have been designed to cover the
first two grades of school (when I felt that advocating FLC-BP was futile), NEDA suggests

3
ideally up to Grade IV. Hon. Magtanggol Gunigundo suggests up to grade VI, and when
completed, the pupils should be capable of transferring to the regular school curriculum, without
difficulty.

These books address teachers’ difficulty underscoring the importance of language and
culture, as the starting point for teaching the child reading and thinking skills which are done
first in the FL and then these skills will be used for learning a second language.
By the time the children enter school, they have a firm foundation in words, grammar and the
social usage of language. This gives them access to learning about new things out in the world.
The first spoken language is the language of the home and of the community. That environment
is extremely significant for the pre-school and for the Grade I child. Then, they meet the second
language Filipino/English when they enter school.

The FLC-BP acts as a buffer to the new language. The English portion of the FLC-BP is
introduced slowly during the year and in spoken form first and then reading in English is
introduced 4-5 months later during the year.

The implication for this strategy is that all these children must listen to the second
language spoken in a rich oral language environment first and are offered opportunities to talk,
talk and talk in that language. In so doing, they acquire rich vocabulary of the English language.
To accomplish this, it is suggested to the teacher that the children must have opportunities to
generate talk, produce utterances, initiate conversations, and say what they think and do in
English. Massive opportunities for talk are required and teachers in the school must speak
English well and must engage the children in conversations in English. Less talking time of
English will develop less control of the language.

All children whether they have opportunities to listen and speak English at home still
need more oral language opportunities in school to expand what they have learned so far. All
pupils in both languages need to have a curriculum, which makes a feature of speaking English
in school and outside of classes.

After 4-5 months of teaching oral English, the language is quite well controlled and
children quite understand what the teacher is saying. The children have control now over
speaking English and are ready to learn to read and write in the second language.

The FLC-BP Books are designed to provide the child experiences for self-extending
activities like reading in English, and when he cannot comprehend, he helps himself to the Iloko
texts. Consequently, the use of the FLC-BP Books minimizes pupil dependency on teachers.

It would be healthy for us to realize in second language learning that there is no other
situation from which progress can take place than the current level of the learner. Language
learning of a foreign language always proceeds from what a child already controls in the first
language.

It is extremely difficult to make Iloko and English equal in level in skills. It is more
reasonable to accept different levels of performance in each of the desired skills: speaking,

4
reading and writing. It will not make sense to even try to keep these two languages “in step.” The
FL allows individual progress towards the English language from where the child is and
expanding from that part. We must therefore allow different levels of achievement. You, future
teachers, should observe your pupils carefully and deliver learning opportunities that allow them
to start where they already have language control.

What needs to happen is the re-examinations of educational policies, which will in the
long term improve teacher’s occupational cultures. Notice that the focus for change should be at
the organizational level rather than at an individual level. It used to be on an individual level
when only NVSU was trying to be heard in its campaign for mother tongue. Today, we are not
alone. Even our neighbor SMU has joined in the bandwagon. After harping for 23 years to use
mother tongue, a big group who call themselves TALAYTAYAN have firmed up the cliché
MTBMLE.

Examination pressures seem to exert a great influence on the classroom practice of many
teachers. Accountability to parents and administrators is a big issue. Therefore the kinds of
assessment procedures that teachers are familiar with are mainly those measuring outcomes: end-
of–the year tests. But the teacher needs to know more than just the end points of instruction;
measure small samples of schools. When exams are around the corner, teaching just stops-the
focus now is to practice on exam papers. Children are subjected solely for purposes of
examination! The analogy is that when a student driver is given a test on driving on the first day
and fails, he is not given driving lessons but instead more driving tests.

Planning and the introduction of a “new” education system will result in change. It is a
human condition to resist and be wary of change, and should therefore be in the planners’ brief to
anticipate fears and attempt to alleviate them before they arise. Specifically, in this instance, the
public needs some explanation of the interplay between languages so that misconceptions and
poorly informed sources do not disrupt the implementation of an education system that works
because it leads to the successful acquisition of literacy skills, in all the system languages.

Beginnings are important. A pupil’s beginning is crucial to his whole future and active
participation in the classroom is necessary to ensure learning that will allow children to reach
their fullest potential. The bridging program is based on how people learn effectively. We,
advocates of the program, would like to see more teachers, administrators and pupils experience
the advantages of this program for the development of learning and thinking skills.

The FLC-BP is the alternative to developing these all too important skills for life long
learning for the Filipino child. The FLC-BP attempts to provide these interplays between the first
language and the target language, English.