what is the importance of bilingual education in the philippines

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• Toggle Accessibility Statement
• Skip to Main Content

DO 52, s. 1987 – The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education

To: Bureau Directors Regional Directors Schools Superintendents Presidents, State Colleges and Universities Heads of Private Schools, Colleges and Universities

• The provision of Article XIV Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution states: “For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino, and until otherwise provided by law, English. The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.”
• The Policy on Bilingual Education aims 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. The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary languages in Grades I and II. The aspiration of the Filipino to enable them to perform their functions and duties as Filipino citizens and in English in order to meet the needs of the country in the community of nations.
• Enhanced learning through two languages to achieve quality education as called for by the 1987 Constitution;
• the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy;
• the development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity;
• the cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse that is to say, its continuing intellectualization; and
• the maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language of science and technology.
• Filipino and English shall be used as media of instruction, the use allocated to specific subjects in the curriculum as indicated in Department Order No. 25, s. 1974.
• The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary media of instruction and as initial language for literacy where needed.
• Filipino and English shall be taught as language subjects in all levels to achieve the goals of bilingual competence.
• Since competence in the use of both Filipino and English is one of the goals of the Bilingual Education Policy, continuing improvement in the teaching of both languages, their use as media of instruction and the specification shall be the responsibility of the whole educational system.
• Tertiary level institutions shall lead in the continuing intellectualization of Filipino. The program of intellectualization, however, shall also be pursued in both the elementary and secondary levels.
• The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall cooperate with the National Language Commission which, according to the 1987 Constitution, shall be tasked with the further development and enrichment of Filipino.
• The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the means by which the language policy can be implemented with the cooperation of government and non-government organizations.
• The Department shall program funds for implementing the Policy, in such areas as materials production, in-service training, compensatory, and enrichment program for non-Tagalogs, development of a suitable and standardized Filipino For classroom use and the development of appropriate evaluative instruments.
• This Order supersedes previous Orders on the Bilingual Education Policy that are inconsistent with it.
• This Order shall take effect immediately.

(SGD.) LOURDES R. QUISUMBING Minister

Reference: Department Orders: Nos. 9, s. 1973 and (25, s. 1974) Allotment: 1-2-3-4–(M.O. 1-87)

To be indicated in the Perpetual Index under the following subjects: COMMUNICATION ARTS COURSE OF STUDY, COLLEGIATE COURSE OF STUDY, ELEMENTARY COURSE OF STUDY, SECONDARY LEGISLATION POLICY RULES AND REGULATIONS

DO_s1987_52

ELT Learning Journeys

Blog pearson elt spain and portugal.

Education in two languages: bilingualism and CLIL

But what is it? And what makes it different from traditional language teaching?

Bilingualism and CLIL

CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an increasingly popular approach to bilingual education . Bilingualism itself is the norm in most parts of the word, the cognitive benefits of bilingualism are well-established, and bilingual education itself goes back a long way. Aristocratic Romans considered a bilingual Greek and Latin education essential for their sons, while clay tablets unearthed in Aleppo in the 1970s indicate that instruction was being given in two languages as far back as 3000BC 1 . In today’s globalised world, governments and schools looking to the most effective ways to ensure they equip school-leavers with the second language skills necessary for success are increasing choosing CLIL as their preferred method.

In CLIL, content from subjects across the curriculum is taught, wholly or partly, through the medium of an additional language , which is often (but certainly not always) English. CLIL classes are content-driven , with a dual focus of teaching both the subject and the language together. The subject matter determines what language will be learned, and the language introduced serves to allow students to learn and communicate about the subject in question. This means that unlike more traditional English lessons, which tend to introduce language in a fairly standardised order of increasing grammatical complexity, CLIL lessons adopt a primarily lexical approach , with lessons becoming more challenging the deeper into the content they go.

However, CLIL is more than simply teaching a subject in another language, or including topic-based work in a language classroom, although it shares many features with integrated skills lessons in ELT. The objective of a CLIL course is to increase learners’ knowledge and understanding of a specific curriculum area, and to develop their thinking and analytical skills more generally. CLIL lessons include a wide range of teaching methodologies , many if not all of which will be familiar to the EFL practitioner, including structured group work, inductive learning, task-based learning and integrated use of educational technologies.

In CLIL, acquisition of the language of instruction becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself . This has been shown to improve learners’ attitudes towards the language 2 . It also economises on lesson time in otherwise packed curricula. Many schools are under pressure from governments to ensure pupils have a certain amount of bilingual education, especially in English , before the graduate. For example, the European Council passed a resolution in 1995 stating that “…all EU citizens, by the time they leave compulsory schooling, should be able to speak two languages other than the mother tongue”. CLIL helps them to achieve this.

A typical CLIL lesson still includes elements of all four language skills. L istening and reading texts serves as key sources of input. In speaking , fluency is prioritised over accuracy, while in writing the key aim is to use topic-related vocabulary with  range of grammatical structure to consolidate and demonstrate understanding of the content of the lesson.

It can be challenging for teachers who are not necessarily language teachers, or even not fully proficient in the second language, to teach using CLIL, especially as learners may have similar levels of background knowledge as regards the content but very different levels of language ability. Fortunately, there are many excellent resources that offer the CLIL teacher structured materials for teaching everything from science to music to arts and crafts . Pearson  has developed a range of courses that bring together the best in CLIL methodology with engaging classroom materials for learners and helpful support materials for teachers.

CLIL is not the same as immersion education. Some schools may only teach on subject through the second language, others may only teach certain sections of a particular subject curriculum. Others may be more wide-ranging. And of course, CLIL doesn’t mean that the learner’s first language should not be taken into account, or that learners should be penalised for using it in class. Indeed, ‘ trans-languaging ’ and ‘ code-switching ‘ – the systematic and dynamic use of two languages to achieve a variety of communicative goals – is the norm in the many parts of the world where bilingualism and multilingualism are widespread, and can easily form part of a CLIL approach. However, as with any aspect of the teaching and learning process, it needs to be incorporated into lessons in a guided, structured way.

Bilingualism and CLIL are becoming ever more important in education around the world. Why not bring some of their benefits into your own classroom? You can find out out more about CLIL here , more about bilingualism and its benefits here , and more about our CLIL resources here .

Don’t forget to sign up to our  ELT blog . You’ll find lots of great stuff to read here!

More info at   Pearson ELT Spain & Portugal

1. Ofelia Garcia, Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. 2009 ch.8

2. CLIL: An interview with Professor David Marsh International House Journal of Education and Development. 

Get our best posts directly in your inbox

Subscribe to our blog, share this:.

One thought on “ Education in two languages: bilingualism and CLIL ”

Pingback: Education in two languages: bilingualism and CL...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe to.

Your Privacy is protected.

• Browse Jobs
• Browse Companies
• Employer? Advertise your jobs

Business Analyst II - Japanese Bilingual

Conduent Pasay City, Metro Manila

Posted August 22, 2024

Through our dedicated associates, Conduent delivers mission-critical services and solutions on behalf of Fortune 100 companies and over 500 governments - creating exceptional outcomes for our clients and the millions of people who count on them. You have an opportunity to personally thrive, make a difference and be part of a culture where individuality is noticed and valued every day.

Job Track Description:

• Requires formal education and relevant expertise in a professional, sales, or technical area.
• Performs technical-based activities.
• Contributes to and manages projects.
• Uses deductive reasoning to solve problems and make recommendations.
• Interfaces with and influences key stakeholders.
• Leverages previous knowledge and expertise to achieve results.
• Ability to complete work self-guided.
• College or university degree required.

General Profile

• Requires knowledge and experience in own field.
• Will acquire higher-level knowledge and skills.
• Develops an understanding of the company, processes, and customers.
• Uses existing procedures to solve routine or standard problems.
• Receives moderate guidance and direction from others.

Functional Knowledge

• Requires expanded conceptual understanding of theories, practices, and procedures. 

Business Expertise

• Uses an understanding of key business drivers to accomplish work.
• Impacts own team through the quality of the services or information provided.
• Follows standardized procedures and practices to achieve objectives and meet deadlines.
• No supervisory responsibilities.
• Provides informal guidance to new team members.

Problem Solving

• Uses existing procedures and technical experience to solve problems.

Interpersonal Skills

• Exchanges complex information and ideas effectively.

Responsibility Statements

• Facilitates working sessions between customers and IT teams to define business requirements.
• Collects data from customers relating to systems and reports issues impacting service delivery.
• Writes detailed business functional requirements documents.
• Compiles cost assessment data for projects for supplier and vendor integration.
• Recommends requirement changes or improvements.
• Prepares business operations reports and develops recommendations.
• Develops well-rounded knowledge of operating processes, user-based systems, and governing regulations.
• Performs other duties as assigned.
• Complies with all policies and standards.

Conduent is an Equal Opportunity Employer and considers applicants for all positions without regard to race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, gender identity, gender expression, sex/gender, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, medical condition, use of a guide dog or service animal, military/veteran status, citizenship status, basis of genetic information, or any other group protected by law.

People with disabilities who need a reasonable accommodation to apply for or compete for employment with Conduent may request such accommodation(s) by clicking on the following link, completing the accommodation request form, and submitting the request by using the "Submit" button at the bottom of the form. For those using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox please download the form first: click here to access or download the form. You may also click here to access Conduent's ADAAA Accommodation Policy.

As one of the largest business process companies in the world, Conduent manages mission-critical digital interactions at massive scale – helping global businesses and governments stay ahead of rapidly evolving... (More)

• All Careers and Jobs at Conduent
• Call Centre & Customer Service jobs

future talking

*inquire. share. innovate. sustain., language-in-education policy: gaps and challenges in the mother tongue based multilingual education (mtbmle) implementation in philippines basic education.

Introduction

This paper shall discuss the gaps and challenges in the policy implementation of the mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTBMLE) as reflective of the language-in-education policy in Philippine basic education.

This paper shall use Susan Malone’s framework in the assessment and analysis in the hope of offering a better understanding of the issues and demands pertinent to policy implementation of strong MTBMLE. As a complement, Jessica Ball’s Spheres of Influence framework shall be taken briefly.

The paper shall trace the evolution of the language-in-education policy in the Philippines. However, its focus of discussion is the current iteration of the policy as embodied in existing laws and instrumentalities that serve as the legal and operational framework for its implementation. These policies include pertinent provisions in the 1987 Constitution, Republic Act 10533 and its implementing rules and regulations, and the Department of Education Order No. 74 s. 2009. It must be stressed that aside from national policies, the Philippines’ language-in-education policy is also cognizant of the various international conventions, standards and practices that influence and dictate directly or indirectly the form and substance and the course and outcomes of our education programs, chief among these the 1990 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Articles 28 and 30).

Finally, this paper hopes to offer insights on the dynamics and synergies involved as well as the context of the language-in-education policy that is currently in place in terms of how it got to where it is right now and what are the prospects and possibilities moving forward.

The Evolution of Language in Education Policy

The Philippines’ language-in-education policy has evolved with the structures of the state and its institutions over a long period of time. By and large, the policy in place has always been reflective of the desire of the government or administration in power and embodied in its fundamental law:  the Constitution. During the Spanish colonial period, our school system had Spanish as the official medium of instruction. The use of Spanish language, being the language of the colonizer, is extended to civil service and business. During the short-lived first Philippine Republic, the 1899 Malolos Constitution, interestingly, made Spanish still compulsory in public and judicial affairs. During the American period, English replaced Spanish as the official State language and as the language used in commerce and trade. Eventually, the post-war establishment of the Philippine Republic precipitated also a shift in policies—foremost among them the language-in-education policy. But as early as the Commonwealth period, former president Manuel L. Quezon had already envisioned a national language based on Tagalog, the language of his region and his mother tongue. Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution provides:

“The National Assembly shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages.”

In response, the First National Assembly approved in November 13, 1936 Commonwealth Act No. 184, mandating the creation of the National Language Institute. The goal of the Institute was to recommend one of the existing native languages to be used as the basis for a national language. Not long after, in December 30, 1937, President Quezon signed Executive Order No. 134 s. 1937 proclaiming the national language of the Philippines based on Tagalog language as recommended by the members of the National Language Institute. The said executive order would precipitate initiatives for the full institutionalization of a language-in-education policy, in this case, a national language that is based on Tagalog. The institutionalization of the Tagalog-based national language, then called Pilipino, found traction during the Japanese occupation when it was used as part of the propaganda, thereby bringing the language to areas where it was not spoken, much less understood. Yet the institutionalization of the national language was not without opposition as there were more non-Tagalog speakers in the Philippines at the time than Tagalog speakers.

The so-called ‘language divide’ that pervaded for decades was left unresolved even after the passage of the 1973 Constitution. The otherwise benign provision on Article XV, Section 3 (2) which provides that “the Batasang Pambansa shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino” did not do much to quell the protest and resistance of the majority non-Tagalog speakers over the non-feasibility of the measure because Filipino as an artificial language lacked “both native speakers and a literary tradition to help propagate it.”

In light of the 1973 Constitution, the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) released DECS Order No. 25 s. 1974, entitled “Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education,” which served as a basis for the institutionalization of bilingual education policy in basic education. The Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) “aims 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.  The regional languages shall be used as auxiliary languages in Grades I and II.  The aspiration of the Filipino nation is to have its citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to perform their functions and duties in order to meet the needs of the country in the community of nations.” Furthermore, the goals of the BEP shall be the following: (1) enhanced learning through two languages to achieve quality education as called for by the 1987 Constitution; (2) the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy; (3) the development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity; (4) the cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse, that is to say its continuing intellectualization; and (5) the maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language of science and technology. Filipino and English shall be used as media of instruction, the use allocated to specific subjects in the curriculum as indicated in the Department Order No. 25 s. 1974.

The 1987 Constitution, while additive in character as far as the provision on language-in-education policy goes, nevertheless upheld the designation of the artificial and still Tagalog-based Filipino as the national language. Article XIV, Section 6 provides:

“The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.”

However, Section 7 of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution provides for the inclusion of regional languages as auxiliary official languages that can be used as an auxiliary media of instruction. Section 9 of the same Article XIV even underscores the promotion, research, development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages. In light of the new Constitution, the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports released DECS Order No. 81 containing the Alphabet and a Guide for Spelling in the Filipino Language. The Order stipulated that the Filipino alphabet is composed of 28 letters comprised of the original 26 letters of the English alphabet, plus the letters Ñ and Ng. The order also provides instruction on how to read the letters. On August 25, 1988, then President Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order No. 335 enjoining all government offices to take steps necessary for the purpose of using Filipino language in official transactions, communications and correspondence.

On August 14, 1991, President Aquino signed into law Republic Act 7104 creating the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), which is tasked to “undertake, coordinate and promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and other Philippine languages.” On May 13, 1992, the KWF under Ponciano B. P. Pineda passed Resolution 92-1, describing Filipino as a native language, spoken and written in Metro Manila, the National Capital Region, and in urban centers in the archipelago where it is used as a language for communication among ethnic groups. Like any other language, Filipino is in the process of development through loans from other native Philippine languages and non-native varieties of the language and through use on various social situations by speakers of different backgrounds for conversations and for scholarly discussions.

In 1994, then President Ramos signed into law Republic Act No. 7722 creating the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). In 1996, the Commission issued CHED Memorandum Order No. 59 s. 1996, which states that “in consonance with the Bilingual Education Policy underlined  in DECS Order No. 52, Series of 1987, the following are the guidelines vis-a-vis medium of instruction, to wit: (1) language courses, whether Filipino or English, should be taught in that language. (2) At the discretion of the HEI, Literature subjects may be taught in Filipino, English or any other language as long as there are enough instructional materials for the same and both students and instructors/professors are competent in the language. Courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences should preferably be taught in Filipino.

Between 1995 and 2009, there have been numerous attempts in Congress to strengthen and make English as the medium of instruction in all levels. In the 13th Congress, for example, the House of Representatives passed on third reading the so-called English Only bill by Cebuano congressman Eduardo Gullas. However, the Senate failed to act on the Bill as its members were already busy preparing for the 2007 midterm elections. The English Only bill was intended to supersede the bilingual education policy that was still in place since 1974. But neither of the so-called English Only bills came to fruition and in July 14, 2009, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009 mandating the institutionalization of the mother tongue-based multilingual education in Philippine basic education.

In 2010, President Benigno Aquino III undertook a major education reform by introducing the K12 program and in 2011, he signed into law Republic Act No. 10533, which put in place the K12 system in Philippine basic education. RA 10533 embodied the MTBMLE provisions of DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009 in Sections 4 and 5.

Models for Assessing

The framework by Susan Malone (2003) is a useful tool in the assessment and analysis of MTBMLE policy implementation. Malone contextualizes MTBMLE within the fold of Education for All (EFA), which requires that new models of development and language and education policies that are integrative in character and operation be put in place to ensure sustainability of education programs that governments undertake.

It is Malone’s view that a strong MTBMLE program owes much of its strength to research where baseline information such as language and education situation are ascertained and factors such as challenges and difficulties in program implementation are obtained and carefully analyzed. Social acceptance or buy-in is also crucial for a program where stakeholders are adequately informed and educated about certain initiatives that are likely to affect them. Higher awareness levels often result into greater mobilization for program support in its various phases. Meanwhile, bringing in the right people into the program is an equally crucial component and by the right people, it means those who are competent, motivated, respected, and passionate, too, about the program. The orthography is another major component required of a strong MTBMLE. However, its development has always been contentious and marred by protests from linguistic communities whose members believe that some agencies of government have effectively stripped them of ownership of their very own orthography because they are less or not involved at all in the process of developing it.

Curriculum and instructional materials are a given in any learning environment. The curriculum and learning materials are, and should be, materials that enable learners to build strong foundations of the first language (L1) and a good bridge to additional languages. The materials should be responsive, contextualized, and localized and enable learners to improve performance and achieve education goals. The learning materials should also be appropriate, interesting, challenging, and engaging. As with any public policy program, a monitoring and evaluation component is necessary to allow implementers and key program stakeholders to make adjustments and to draw lessons and best practices from it. In many cases, it is through monitoring and evaluation that some flaws inherent in program design are discovered. Funding is another major component in Malone’s framework. It should be regular, available, and sustainable. Finally, a supportive policy environment is what provides permanence and strength to a program to survive in the long term.

In a paper commissioned for Unesco, Jessica Ball (2010), explains how education programs and policies are influenced by certain factors in spheres. The framework is useful in terms of how much each factor influences policy and implementation. Ball’s framework relates closely with Malone’s (training, research, policies and funding); the programs sphere may correspond to Malone’s curriculum and learning materials (graded). The sphere for macrosystem values may be what we often refer to as the ‘big picture,’ something that relates well to understanding policy formulation within the policy system model.

It must be noted though that the presence of all the variables or components in either framework does not guarantee success in MTBMLE implementation. The success would depend largely on the kind of as well as the relationship and interdependence between the variables present.

The Pre-MTBMLE Language-in-Education Policy

There are three (3) questions that guide this section, namely:

• Why is the issue/problem urgent and be given government attention?
• What is the extent/magnitude of the problem?
• What has been done on the problem/issue?

Aside from the usual classroom shortage that has become a permanent column fodder, poor attendance and high dropout rate among school-age children is what drives a lot of interventions and innovations in schools, the curriculum, pedagogy, and even the incentives system for teachers and school administrators.

Based on National Statistics Office’s (NSO) Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) of 2004, six percent of the cohort of 12.6 million school-age children aged 6–11 years old (elementary) are not attending school; for aged 12-15 years old, 11 percent of the cohort of 7.9 million children. That’s a lot of school-age children out of school for so many reasons. By income groups, the same data tells us that dropout is highest among the poorest quantile, with non-attendance rate of 35 percent at the elementary level and 28 percent at the secondary level for the bottom 20 percent income group. On the other, for the top 20 percent of the income group, non-attendance rate is recorded at four percent at the elementary level and five percent at the secondary level (PIDS 2010).

The dropout phenomenon is both an economic and equity issue. Economically, dropout means loss of potential productivity and this will have adverse impact on families at the lowest strata. In terms of efficiency in the education sector, dropout also impacts the goal of achieving a targeted proportion of the population having some level of schooling. Dropout impacts human capital formation, the lack of quality, if not the plain lack of it, impacts on labor and market strength on the macro level. On a micro level, the sadder reality about dropout is to be seen in the never-ending cycle of intergenerational poverty transmission wherein poor children are likely to lead a low-income trajectory in the future. Hence, the dropout phenomenon is a serious economic, equity, and education policy issue that the government must address.

While poverty appears to be the dominant factor for dropout, a study also pointed out school-related reason for what the author calls school-leaving, among them loss of interest and lack of motivation . Teacher factor , family and peers, inaccessibility, adjustment problems, and school readiness are also factors that induce dropout (Nava 2009). While the study points out physical inaccessibility as inductive of school-leaving, there is another form of inaccessibility in many schools that may have contributed to dropout—the language or the medium of instruction used (emphasis mine).

The emphasis on loss of interest, lack of motivation, and teacher factor relates well to issues of content and context in instructional materials that teachers deliver in the classroom. While a responsive language-in-education policy may not or may never address poverty-related nonattendance, it confronts at least a major hurdle in improving attendance by keeping school children interested in their lessons because these are now accessible as these are delivered in the language they understand. A survey of the wealth of research reports on the use of language in education revealed that using the learner’s mother tongue facilitates literacy, learning of academic content, acquisition of a second language (enabling learners to be bilingual) and overall academic achievement (Kosonen 2005). Kosonen also noted that parents are more involved and teachers are able to assess learning achievement.

Although the dropout phenomenon is more pronounced in some areas or regions, it is undoubtedly nationwide in scale and therefore requires a policy action on that level. This is not to say that the government was completely inept so as not to respond. In fact, as discussed in Section II of this paper, there have been numerous attempts to address a myriad of problems plaguing the basic as well as the higher education sector, the dropout phenomenon included. Yet, those interventions did not seem to deliver what was thought to be a transformative reform, if at all. The Human Development Network (HDN), in a 2010 paper written by a group of academics led by Prof. Cynthia Rose Bautista, noted that while the Philippine government has undertaken a series of initiatives in reforming the basic education sector, some things, if not a lot of things, remain the same. Among the major reasons that hinder reform in basic education, in the DepEd itself, is the failed language-in-education policy (Bautista 2010). The paper is categorical in saying the language-in-education policy is out of sync with research evidence.

A closer examination of previous policies and by looking at researches on responsive language-in-education policy, the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) that was in place before MTBMLE, was a dismal failure as evidenced by its products, many of them teachers who are still teaching who, according to Bautista, “have been reported as greatly deficient in their English language skills  (emphasis mine).” The deficiency in the second language (L2) is a default in the BEP because there was no emphasis in the mastery of the first language (L1) of the learners as a condition to acquiring with proficiency a second or third language later on. We have to reiterate the point that using the learner’s mother tongue facilitates literacy, learning of academic content, the acquisition of a second language enabling learners to be bilingual, and overall academic achievement.

In sum, Bautista identified four major points that hinder reform in language-in-education policy. First, the DepEd formulated a weak policy on bilingual education that does not stand on strong theoretical grounds; second, the DepEd surrendered the power to decide on the language of schools rather than advocate research-based policy; third, exacerbating the loss of efficacy in determining the language policy is a seeming lack of serious effort on the part of the DepEd to explain the crucial role of language to policy makers; and finally, the DepEd has yet to negotiate a shift from structural learning paradigms to more socio-constructivist methods of teaching and assessing language and literacy learning.

Furthermore, Bautista identifies institutional factors that hinder reform initiatives in language-in-education policy and in the DepEd itself as an institution that is supposed to possess the capacity to introduce reforms from within. The factors include externally induced reform, pilot project mindset, marginal reform projects from within, untapped project lessons for setting policy directions, constraints beyond DepEd’s control, and cultural barriers.

The externally-driven reforms instigated by foreign donors raise the  question whether DepEd has the institutional capacity to eventually initiate and sustain them and also if the Department can introduce new ideas into its practices and policies given the dependence to foreign assistance. The pilot project mindset tends to miniaturize bigger problems offer solutions without completely understanding the full scale and contexts of the issues involved. The project mentality also tends to view solutions on a short-term. Reform projects initiated at the margins of DedEd tend to bring more issues than contribute to their reform targets. Projects such as Educational Development Project Implementing Task Force (EDPITAF) involved large amounts of money that many non-project staff at DepEd never got to benefit because of the preference of projects to engage people or staff outside of DepEd and detached from the realities of the Department. The non-operationalization of the research, innovation and policy evaluation system within DepEd foregoes institutionalization of lessons culled from programs and projects that will have set the Department’s future policy direction. There, too, are admittedly constraints beyond DepEd’s control especially those involving dealing with other executive agencies of the government such as the Department of Budget and Management. Finally, aside from institutional barriers, there are also cultural factors that hinder reform, among them the resistance to change.

It may be recalled that in 2009, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009 institutionalizing MTBMLE. The issuance of the Order was at first unanticipated because of at least one reason: President Arroyo was supportive of the Gullas’ English Only Bill as it feeds into her agenda of expanding the BPO sector where frontline service workers need to be proficient in the English language. (In fact, as recently as the 16th Congress, Mrs. Arroyo, now representative of the 2nd District of Pampanga, filed House Bill No. 311 seeking to enhance the use of English as the medium of instruction in Philippine schools). This explains why the so-called ‘counter’ bill on MTBMLE shepherded by Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo of the 2nd District of Valenzuela City could not get any traction. [1] Yet the growing movement advocating for MTBMLE and aided by research evidence could no longer be ignored and so in August 2009, the DepEd issued what was thought to be a response to the clamor for reform. The issuance of the Order precipitated some sort of paradigm shift among a growing number of teachers aside from scholars from the academe and advocates from civil society organizations. DepEd Order No. 74 calls for the institutionalization of the fundamental educational policy and program department-wide in the whole stretch of formal education including pre-school and in the Alternative Learning System (emphasis mine). There was some amount of enthusiasm in the policy and there would be more in the ensuing activities in support of its institutionalization. Between the issuance of the Order and until the next key DepEd officials settled in their respective offices, the MTBMLE as embodied in the Order enjoyed growing popularity and support although there were also those who opposed it, notably academics who belong to the so-called ‘doctrinal left,’ whose nationalist-democratic notion of language-in-education policy is akin to China’s one-language policy. Yet the DepEd was unfazed and even launched a nationwide retooling program to bring early grades teachers up to the task of implementing MTBMLE. Graded materials based on contextualized curriculum were produced at the community level. There was also support from various local government units as well as technical assistance from numerous rights-based nongovernmental organizations involved in literacy and child welfare. Both traction and momentum were present in duration of the program.

In 2010, the administration of President Benigno Aquino III undertook a major reform in education via introduction of the K-to-12 (now called K12) program to enhance the basic education sector. By 2011, RA 10533 was signed into law. RA 10533 embodies the salient points of DepEd Order No. 74 in Sections 4 and 5 of the law. However, the strong MTBMLE provisions in RA 10533 are diluted in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the mother law. Prof. Ricardo Ma. D. Nolasco of the UP Department of Linguistics called the dilution of the MTBMLE provisions “castration” in his opinion piece in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, arguing that the devolution provision in curriculum and learning material development and production is weakened by escape clauses such as “when appropriate” and “in accordance to national policies and standards,” leaving this provision as well as other provisions mere option rather than an imperative.

As the DepEd slowly rolls out the new curriculum under K12, it also puts a brake on all capacity-building initiatives undertaken in view of DepEd Order No. 74, regardless whether these were beneficial to teachers implementing MTBMLE. The unwarranted disruption was not only a form of discontinuity; it was also a waste of resources because the millions of pesos that DepEd spent on capacity building will have less or no return as the knowledge and preparedness gained by those who underwent such trainings were either underutilized or unutilized at all.

In the pre-K12 MTBMLE, the teachers were oriented on the full breadth and principle of MTBMLE, and the conditions for its successful implementation. It was inculcated among them that MTBMLE is not a mere strategy or pedagogy.  It is a shift in paradigm. MTBMLE is, and could have been, the fundamental education reform that the Philippines has been waiting for decades. In fact, according to Dr. Edilberto de Jesus, Professor Emeritus at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and former DepEd Secretary, the only thing new and innovative about the Philippines’ K12 program is its MTBMLE feature. [2]

Gaps, Challenges, and Difficulties in MTBMLE Policy Implementation Under RA 10533

As it stands today, the ‘castrated’ MTBMLE is reduced to being a bridge, a tool for reading proficiency. In the trainings conducted by DepEd for K12, MTBMLE is assigned the lesser regard and role as just a tool for improving reading skills. Beyond perspectives and ideological divide, the current regard for MTBMLE policy and practice, while it does not diminish its own principles, is unhelpful in advancing learning in the early grades and improving education outcomes for the country. By regarding MTBMLE as just a tool for reading skills improvement, the education leaders are missing the whole point in limiting the potential of what it can contribute to improving learning outcomes. If DepEd‘s policy posture were to be discerned, there is less or no prospect to exhausting the full potentials of MTBMLE. A longitudinal study spanning 11 years and involving a total of more than 210,000 students in both urban and rural schools in the United States did nothing to move DepEd to remove the escape clauses in the IRR of RA 10533. The study showed that students with the longest exposure to their mother tongue outperform the average native English speaker, and students who had an early exit in their mother tongue education performed poorly in the latter years (Thomas and Colliers 1997).

While it is true that RA 10533 lends MTBMLE permanence until another law repeals it, it also makes the challenges and difficulties a long term affair until an honest program reorientation creeps into the minds of those who decide its fate. For one thing, there is no more funding allocation for MTBMLE trainings and materials development or any activity that pertains to MTBMLE. The very limited funds that teacher may access come from the allocation of the IPED, or the Indigenous Peoples Education fund. Section 5 of RA 10533 provides for contextualization of curriculum and learning materials yet funding to flesh out this provision is not made readily available by the DepEd. A lot of teachers who have gone through contextualization workshops had to unnecessarily spend their own money to cover expenses that otherwise should have been provided for by the DepEd. This happened in South Cotabato, in Sarangani, in North Cotabato, in Sultan Kudarat, and in Cotabato City. This also happened in Bukidnon. It is fair to even assume this happens all over the country. This form of minoritization of a mainstream education reform initiative is what happens also in the retooling program of teachers as they were being prepared for the full implementation of K12. In the mass trainings for teachers conducted between 2013 until the recent batch in the summer of 2015, which are normally delivered in five (5) days, only a measly two (2) hours is devoted to MTBMLE. The time allotment brings about questions of quantity and quality.

An ongoing UP-CIDS-supported research in selected areas in eight regions nationwide reveals preliminary findings such as the lack of learning materials and funding to undertake contextualization. [3] The absence of graded learning materials in the language of the users has created an opening for another potential problem: resource materials from Luzon (in Tagalog and Ilokano) are translated for use in Visayas and Mindanao. Offhand, a lot of people see nothing wrong with the practice. However, in the provisions of the law and in the principle of MTBMLE, that’s something irregular, if not anomalous. The practice of issuing out-of-context and culturally-insensitive learning materials to learners in the early grades is driven not by necessity but by convenience and therefore reflects the broken policy implementation of an otherwise noble reform program.

Concerned people in the education reform community could not help but ask if there is corruption going on in the circulation of ‘inappropriate’ learning materials, considering that the government has the resources to procure the former in glossy print but could not finance production of the same in its humbler yet contextualized and culturally-sensitive form at a cheaper acquisition cost. (This paper shall not provide answers to these questions; in may do so in another venue).

Another critical area in MTBMLE is in orthography development, of which RA 10533 is silent and for which some individuals and organizations are trying to take advantage to forward their ideological agenda at the expense of the program and meaningful learning. Due to the demand for contextualization of learning materials, a newfound challenge in rewriting them using a widely-acceptable spelling system has surfaced as word usage, whether spoken or written, indeed vary from one community to another within the same province or region. Differences in spelling usage can be serious, and some users of the same language but spelling could not be brought to an agreement. This difficulty of agreement did not escape the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), whose simplistic prescription is to standardize all Philippine orthographies based on the so-called Ortograpiyang Pambansa for the sake of unity and uniformity. Ironically, the trend worldwide in orthography development of a particular language community is moving away from an expert or linguist-driven process. Rather, the preferred mode is community-based and participatory process where the linguist only serves as a “midwife”or a facilitator where speakers of the language themselves come together in a workshop to discuss both the linguistic and non-linguistic issues that comes with orthography development such as standardization, representation, transparency, acceptability. They then propose a plan of action to meet commonly shared desired outcomes. The study in Zambia, for example, shows that such model may be challenging and complicated and yet community participation can still happen. This will promote a sense of ownership and custodianship over their own orthography (Bow 2012). So far, we have noted two examples of a policy response driven by convenience and not necessarily by research evidence: (a) the supply of translated resource materials because there are no materials available in the language the users need and (b) the standardization of all Philippine orthography based on the Pambansang Ortograpiya for uniformity and unity.

In Section 4 of RA 1074, the law that created the KWF, the Komisyon is mandated to “undertake, coordinate and promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and other Philippine languages and which shall be directly under the Office of the President.” According to people involved in orthography development in several regions, the Komisyon, or its Chair, Virgilio Almario, is doing the exact opposite of what it is mandated to perform. Imposing standardized orthography is nowhere near coordination, or promotion and the actions of the KWF through its chair are neither backed by researches on standardization.

Findings and Conclusions

This section shall be guided by the following question:

• Were the measures undertaken effective? Why or why not?

There are four major findings in the paper’s discussion of the language-in-education policy exemplified in the policy implementation of MTBMLE in Philippine basic education within the K12 system.

Firstly, there are gaps in policy and practice. Whereas the policy says this, the practice or implementation does that. There are at least three examples we can mention: (a) funding, (b) curriculum and learning materials development and devolution, and (c) the transition provision. There is a cost of MTBMLE implementation, among them teacher training, learning materials development and contextualization. While the law provides for funding of these activities, the DepEd as the chief implementer of the program under K12 either withholds or totally removes funding. Funding for MTBMLE activities are sourced not from MTBMLE fund pool but from IPED. As provided for in Section 5 of RA 10533, the development and approval of learning materials are devolved to the regions but this is not the case. The escape clauses in the IRR rendered these provisions spineless. The MTBMLE transition program for grades 4 to 6 as provided for in Section 4 is also not being done by DepEd.

Secondly, there are flaws in the policy itself. The provisions in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10533 are riddled with escape clauses that virtually weaken the intent of the mother law. Section 5 (f) of RA 10533 provides that “the curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of MTB-MLE,” and that “schools can localize, indigenize, and enhance the curriculum based on their respective educational and social contexts,” and that “the production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be encouraged and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.” However, in the IRR, escape clauses like “when appropriate” and “in accordance with national policies and standards” were inserted to effectively do away with devolution.

Thirdly, there is interference in both policy and implementation by other state agencies whose official actions are not sanctioned by its mandates. The KWF, whose mandate is to “undertake, coordinate and promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and other Philippine languages and which shall be directly under the Office of the President” does not have in its mandate the power to impose standardized orthography on Philippine languages.

Finally, there are ambiguities in the relationships and synergies of institutions involved, directly or indirectly, in the policy and implementation of K12. The interference of KWF, for example, in the development of orthographies undertaken by DepEd in collabrtation with language users and speakers while sidelining qualified linguists from the academe raises questions on the competence and credibility of the Commission through its chairman. All stakeholders have each role to play and clearly in this case, there is confusion if not deliberate manipulation to not involve some parties in effective policy implementation.

To render a fair assessment it is paramount to recall the frameworks that Malone and Ball proposed and examine if there is correspondence between the frameworks and the processes involved in MTBMLE policy and its implementation. To examine this correspondence requires availability of baseline data. Fortunately, the ongoing UP-CIDS study may provide some preliminary information to help in the analysis.

There is no doubt that multilingualism, the language-in-education policy in place, has gone through the process of development which can be traced back to 2009 with the issuance of DepEd Order No. 74. What this implies is that the basic demands of policy formulation (and implementation) have been met although we have to caution that compliance does not always assume quality. In this view, our language-in-education policy has the semblance of correspondence to what Malone demands of a ‘strong’ MTBMLE. Preliminary research, awareness raising and mobilization, recruitment and training, orthography development, curriculum and instructional materials development, development of graded learning materials in each language, monitoring, evaluation and documentation are activities that were undertaken at various junctures in the development of the MTBMLE policy. Funding was also provided and a ‘supportive policy environment’ facilitated the passage of the so-called K12 law which embodies our language-in-education policy.

However, as observed in the study that examines the synergies in the implementation of MTBMLE in view of the provisions of RA 10533, there appears to be some serious gaps in the policy implementation of MTBMLE. The most common and complained about across areas covered by the study is the lack of (a) instructional materials in users’ languages, (b) graded learning materials, and (c) funding for contextualization of the learning materials. There is also an issue with orthography development with several languages with no spelling system in place. As mentioned earlier, the KWF’s prescription of standardizing orthographies did not go well with speakers of these languages, much less claim credibility in terms of the existing practices. Monitoring and evaluation is something that has not been underscored or may not have been fully understood and this is reflected in the difficulty of obtaining baseline information, hence the proposal and approval by UP-CIDS to undertake the study and in the process collect valuable data and information useful in setting future policy direction. Training correlates with funding, the availability of which determines the kind and quality that teachers get. In terms of acceptance, much remains to be desired in terms of mobilizing the other key stakeholders within the policy ecosystem, including local government units and their respective chief executives. There is value in mobilizing LGUs and fully involving them because, as demonstrated in many areas, they can mobilize resources and generate funds to support implementation. There, too, remains much to be desired in terms of involvement of local higher educational institutions (HEIs), specifically teacher education institutions or TEIs, in the areas of action research and collaboration with other key stakeholders. There’s only a handful of TEIs whose constituents are actively involved in continuing studies to promote and strengthen MTBMLE and hopefully to inform policymaking.

Finally, the language-in-education policy in place is not a failure, although there is some degree of difficulty in trying to answer the black-or-white question of whether it is effective or not in the absence of complete data and information. Generally though, the policy maybe considered to be less effective given the gaps and challenges and the inherent flaws in the policy itself. Certainly, it does not measure up to the demands of strong MTBMLE. Not yet. But if there’s one lesson that can be discerned out of Malone’s framework, it is the fact that MTBMLE as a policy and as a program has to navigate the ‘treacherous’ policy ecosystem whose ‘temperament’ can only be tamed not by some external force—external forces are part of the ecosystem, as in Jessica Ball’s macrosystem values imply—but by the consensual act of their agents. There has to be some common grounds on which the policy and implementation is rested and where every stakeholder can claim access and ownership to some degree and this can only be accomplished by continuing examination and self-reflection among stakeholder themselves.

Recommendations

The full implementation of the K12 Law, which embodies the provisions that underpin the MTBMLE, is initially thought to cure the deficiencies in the policy implementation. However, since there are inherent flaws in the policy, or at least in its IRR, the following specific measures are recommended to improve implementation.

Closing the gaps between policy and practice. The policy-practice gaps in funding, curriculum and learning materials development and devolution, and transition provision can be closed by the DepEd by making funding available for MTBMLE related activities, subject to the usual provisions of accountability, transparency, and modesty in the use of public funds for public purposes. The contravening provision in the IRR on devolution of development and approval of learning materials should be clarified either by policy issuance or amendment to the said IRR. The MTBMLE transition program for grades 4 to 6 as provided for in Section 4 has to be undertaken by DepEd immediately.

Amendatory policy clarification. The escape clauses in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10533 have to be removed in order to have a clear-cut policy in keeping with the clear provisions of the mother law.

Dialogues among stakeholders and institutions. Agencies involved in the policy implementation of MTBMLE, whether directly or indirectly, should discuss strategies and points of convergence as well as their respective mandates to determine and correct overlapping functions, if any, so as to avoid interfering on each other’s functions.

Clarification of roles of institutions and stakeholders. The role of each agency, organization or institution involved directly or indirectly in the governance of MTBMLE has to be spelled out clearly and the rules of engagement be set in an unambiguous language to avoid interference and discourage manipulation in the processes and procedures pertinent to the policy implementation of MTBMLE.

Alternatively, advocates in the academe and civil society, among other sectors, should come together and discuss how to strengthen the program and ensure that its implementation is guided by the principles of effective and successful MTBMLE and that its implementation is well within the provisions of the law. They should form their own monitoring body or a watchdog if working with the DepEd and its partner agencies proves not viable. The monitoring body may also conduct research and program assessment either independently or in cooperation with the DepEd or with the academe or with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to fill in the gaps and to further enrich the practice and implementation of MTBMLE. Finally, in all those proposed assessments, it would be beneficial to all interested parties to make use of the frameworks of Malone and Ball by incorporating the variables therein in the survey instrument.

In the long term, the academe should play a more active role, especially in the conduct of a longitudinal study in specific areas in the Philippines to provide a more independent, reliable, and credible information that will inform and set direction for future policymaking. Our policymaking should strive for sustainability. Therefore the more evidenced-based research are undertaken, the better it would be for us and for the policymakers to determine the so-called enablers as well as the constraints of sustainable MTBMLE.

CONSTITUTIONS

The 1899 Malolos Constitution

The 1935 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution

REPUBLIC ACTS

Republic Act 7104, An Act Creating the Commission of the Filipino Language, Prescribing its Powers, Duties and Functions, and for Other Purposes

Republic Act No. 7722, Higher Education Act of 1994

Republic Act 10533, An Act Enhancing the Philippine Basic Education System by Strengthening its Curriculum and Increasing the Number of Years for Basic Education, Appropriating Funds Therefor for Other Purposes

HB No. 311. An Act to Strengthen and Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction in Philippine Schools

INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION

The 1990 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child

DEPARTMENT ORDERS/MEMORANDUM/CIRCULARS/RESOLUTIONS

CHED Memorandum Order No. 59 s. 1996

Retrievd here http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CMO-No.59-s1996.pdf

DECS Order No. 25 s. 1974, Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education

Retrieved here

DECS Order No. 81, Assistance to Private Madrasah: An Incentive to Adopt the Standard Curriculum as Authorized Under DepEd Order No. 51 s. 2004 and Total Mainstreaming of Madrasah Education as a Component of the National System of Basic Education

DECS Order No. 52, Series of 1987

DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009, Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE)

KWF Resolution 92-1

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Ball, J. (2010). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years: Literature review. UNESCO, International Mother Language Development . http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002122/212270e.pdf

Bautista, C. R, Bernardo, A. I., and Ocampo, D. (2010). When reforms don’t transform. Reflections on institutional reforms in the Department of Educatio n. Quezon City: Human Development Network.

Bow, C (2012). Community-based orthography development in four Western Zambian languages. Writing Systems Research, 2012. Routledge. Taylor and Francis

Kosonen (2005) Education in local languages: Policy and Practice in South-East Asia. First Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia. UNESCO, Bangkok

Malone, S (2003). Education for multilingualism and multi-literacy in ethnic minority communities: the situation in Asia. Plenary Presentation at the Conference on Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Bangkok Thailand, November 2003. http://www-01.sil.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/susan_malone.pdf

Nava, F. J. (2009). Factors in school leaving: Variations across gender groups, school levels and locations. Education Quarterly , Vol. 67 (1), 62-78

Thomas, Wayne C. and Virginia Collier. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Newspaper article

Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. D. (2013/09/13). ‘Castrated MTBMLE. Philippine Daily Inquirer .

Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/61025/castrated-mtb-mle

Policy brief

Orbeta, A. (2010), A glimpse at the school dropout problem (Policy Brief 4-2010)

Retrieved from http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/ris/pn/pidsbrief04.pdf

[1] Interview with Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo at the sidelines of the 1st Philippine Conference-Workshop on Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education, February 18-20, 2010, Cagayan de Oro City.

[2] Remarks in a speech at the AIM-Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Policy Forum on Inclusive Education, February 15, 2011, Discovery Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.

[3] “A Study of the Implementation Synergy of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in Schools and the Broader Community in View of RA 10533” is a research funded by the University of the Philippines-Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP-CIDS), with assistance to proponents extended by Unesco-Bangkok, covers eight regions of the Philippines (Northern Luzon, Bicol, Central and Eastern Visayas, Northern Mindanao, Western Mindanao, Central Mindanao, Southern Mindanao) and runs from May to December 2015.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Primary Education

Bilingualism and Multilingualism in Primary Education (Philippines)

• January 2019
• In book: Bloomsbury Education and Childhood Studies

• University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Gretchen J Portillas
• Sharmaigne A Sabornido
• Lyn H Roxas

• Isabel Pefianco Martin

• Lorraine Pe Symaco

• Elsa Cardenas-Hagan

• INT J EDUC DEV

• Richard B. Baldauf Jr
• Lisa Burton
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Entry Requirements
• Tuition Fees
• Application
• Early Years
• Academic Results
• How We Teach
• Collaborations
• Social purpose
• Discover more
• Parent essentials

The Benefits of Bilingual Education

In an increasingly small world, Bilingual Education is something that children can benefit from for the rest of their lives. Being bilingual has a profound effect on the brain and can open up a broad variety of academic, economic, and societal opportunities leading into adulthood.

Bilingual Education has been proven to be a secret weapon in supercharging children’s learning and even changing the structure of the human brain.

This article touches on some of the main benefits of receiving a Bilingual Education, plus some of the things parents should think about if they’re considering a bilingual education for their child.

8 Proven Benefits of Bilingual Education   

The benefits of bilingual education last a lifetime and cover many different aspects of life. Here are eight of the most significant:

1. Increased Cognitive Development

Learning a second language is one of the most effective ways of boosting brain capacity. A review of relevant studies by the  National Education Association (NEA)  found a sweeping range of cognitive benefits to young children learning a second language.

Among them are tasks that call for creative thinking, pattern recognition and problem-solving, all of which children that know a second language perform better in. Young learners will also develop greater linguistic awareness and a more complex understanding of their native language.

They’ve even been found to have better self-esteem and a greater sense of achievement in their academic pursuits.

2. Better Academic Achievement

Add all of the cognitive benefits together and you have a child that is equipped with all the tools they need for academic success.

Bilingual students’ brain function is improved as the mind is challenged to recognise, find meaning and communicate in multiple languages. This cognitive flexibility makes bilingual children more able to think critically and analyse complex information.

A thirty-two-year study  by Thomas and Collier from George Mason University  indicated that students who had a bilingual education and that spoke multiple languages had greater achievements than their monolingual peers, especially in maths, reading and vocabulary.

The same review from the NEA also discovered that bilingual children often do better at standardised tests than those who know only a single language.

3. Improved Memory

Children who learn multiple languages have stronger memories and are more cognitively creative.

Research in 2013 in the  Journal of Experimental Child Psychology  indicated that bilingual people are usually better at remembering names, directions and items than those who speak one language.

4. Resistance to Dementia

Many of these benefits are centred around the short and medium-term, but people can still reap the rewards of bilingual education long into old age.

A recent study from the  University of York  in Canada found that people who speak more than one language develop dementia symptoms an average of five years later and can cope with a greater level of brain dysfunction than their monolingual counterparts.

5. Increased Economic Opportunities

In an interconnected and rapidly changing world, there is an increased need for a multilingual workforce and the ability to conduct business in more than one language is becoming more critical. Bilingual people often hold higher positions and earn better incomes than monolinguals in the same industry.

Business is only going more global, so having the ability to communicate with customers in more than one market is always going to be attractive to employers. It also opens doors for those who wish to move and work abroad.

The demand for bilinguals is increasing rapidly. According to the  New American Economy,  the number of job postings in the U.S. requiring bilingual skills more than doubled between 2010 and 2015, rising to 630,000. A child with a bilingual education puts themselves ahead of the competition for these high-skilled roles.

6. Make Travelling More Enjoyable

In a globalised society, travel is becoming an ever more essential part of growing up. As teenagers hit adulthood, more of them decide to head overseas in search of adventure and discovery.

Individuals who have a second language give themselves the best chance to embrace the world that awaits them. Being able to talk directly with locals or fellow travellers inspires confidence in circumstances that might otherwise be daunting. Better equipped to make friends and embrace new cultures, travelling can be an even richer experience when you have the gift of knowing the native language of the countries you visit.

7. Cross-cultural Appreciation

The exposure to two languages assists students in developing an appreciation for differences in cultures. Students can engage with languages through folk tales, songs, idioms and other primary sources of information without requiring translation; leading to more meaningful cultural exchanges.

The classes themselves are also a great opportunity to teach children about diversity and promote equality. Bilingual education programmes tend to have a balance of different ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Exposure to cultural differences in childhood is a contributing factor in building a more tolerable individual that promotes equality in the modern world.

8. Improvements in the Executive Function of the Brain

The executive function is a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing other mentally demanding tasks. Bilingual people are better able to sort out relevant information from irrelevant information, meaning they can focus better and be more effective thinkers and decision-makers.

Bilingual learners tend to perform better on tasks that require multi-tasking, complex decision making and problem-solving. It also leads to less-emotionally charged and more critically analysed decisions being made. When we think through a problem in a second or third language, we distance ourselves from biases or emotional associations with certain concepts and ideas. It allows us to think more systematically and evidence-based to make decisions based purely on the facts.

Bilingual Education: Factors to Consider    

If you are a parent weighing up the possibility of giving your child a bilingual education, what factors do you need to think about? Here are the answers to two of the most frequently asked questions:

What curriculum does the school teach?

Before you select the right school for your child, make sure you know the curriculum back to front.

International schools usually deliver the  International Baccalaureate  Diploma, a world-renowned academic certification that will include the learning of a new language. At some bilingual schools, your child may be taught the national curriculum of that country, and classes may not be delivered in both languages equally.

Be sure to discuss the curriculum and certification of each school before you make any firm decisions.

What languages should be learned?

This is ultimately down to individual circumstances but is something that requires consideration.

Second languages are beneficial in all the cognitive, social and economic ways we’ve outlined here, but which language will maximise all of these to bring the most out of bilingual education? If English isn’t the native language they are learning at home, it’s the most spoken language in the western world and essential to opening travel and work-based opportunities in Europe and America.

Other opportunities include Mandarin Chinese, Spanish and Arabic. Each of these is spoken by significant portions of the world population. Consider your family’s location, native tongue and future prospects before selecting a second language.

Nord Anglia Education delivers outstanding educational opportunities to children in 29 countries around the world. Our international and bilingual schools harness all of these advantages discussed here to make our students ready to capitalise on the unique opportunities bilingualism affords.

To find a Nord Anglia School near you, head to our  school’s  page.  

To learn more about languages taught at NAIS Manila, speak with our Admissions Team  online through our Virtual Discovery Meeting.

Click the link below to know more.

Related news

What is personalised learning and how does it help my child at school?

Student journalists: a look back at this year’s UNICEF Student Summit

Why creativity is an essential skill to develop

How to talk to your child about their exam results

Want to hear from us?

By joining our mailing list, we can keep you up to date with any future newsletters, events and announcements from our family of 80+ premium schools.

Admissions: 

+63 (2) 7987 7878

[email protected]

• About Nord Anglia
• About Our School
• Global Campus
• Parent Essentials
• Our Global Network

We use cookies to improve your online experiences. To learn more and choose your cookies options, please refer to our  cookie policy .

855-997-4652 Login Try a Free Class

The Pros and Cons of Bilingual Education for Kids

Bilingual education refers to teaching academic content in both a native and second language. While that may seem like a simple definition, you’ll soon see—it’s a bit more complicated than that!

Bilingual education dates back to the 19th century when communities in the U.S. began to teach European immigrant children. Usually, teachers gave lessons in other languages, such as German, Dutch, French, and Spanish. 

Even though it’s not new, this system of education is rather controversial. Its supporters and critics both present convincing arguments as to why it should be or not be enacted.

Amid this controversy, I’ve done enough personal and academic research to know that I wholeheartedly support bilingual education. Let me share with you what I’ve learned from both sides and give you an idea of why I think the way I do.

What Does Bilingual Education Look Like?

Various program models exist in bilingual education. Traditional programs for English Language Learners (ELLs) focus on helping students transition from their native language to English. 

On the other hand, dual-language or two-way immersion programs are currently popular in public schools. They provide instruction across subjects to both English natives and ELLs, in both English and in a target language. 

Historically, early exit or transitional bilingual education involved heavy use of the home language when the child entered school, followed by the exclusive use of the school language, typically in English-only classrooms. The idea was to assimilate the student as quickly as possible. In contrast, maintenance bilingual education incorporates the school language into some subject areas and the target language into others.

My Take on Bilingual Education

Personally, I believe that bilingual education is important. In 2006, I completed an emergency teacher certification program and later worked as a bilingual classroom teacher in Austin, Texas as well as Guatemala for nine years. And, I am a proud bilingual mom of a 7-year-old bilingual daughter! 

My experience is that bilingual education is complex, challenging, and necessary . 

As an educator, every class I taught consisted of a wide range of students with different levels of bilingualism and biliteracy, including native English speakers and native Spanish speakers with little to no English skills.. This made it challenging to reach each individual student at their level, especially when I was the lone teacher in a classroom of 20+ students.

Gratefully, in the education of my daughter, which has been a mix of homeschooling and Waldorf-style education in school settings with much smaller class sizes, her skills in Spanish and English have flourished as she learns to read and write in both languages.  

A Summary of the Ongoing Bilingual Education Debate 

Some people believe that exposing children to two languages is harmful and confusing to the children. Both positive and negative publicity has come out over the years with regard to bilingualism in children and bilingual education. However, myths and misconceptions tend to be the basis of the criticism as opposed to scientific findings.

Twenty years ago, a movement in the U.S. promoted the concept of an “English first” education. As a result, California passed Proposition 227 in 1998, and some other states enacted similar legislation. The regulation sharply reduced the amount of time that ELLs spent in bilingual settings. In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 58 , which basically reversed that decision. Today, many researchers strongly advocate for dual-language classrooms .

4 Pros of Bilingual Education

1. improves cognitive skills.

The human brain is a complex system, and much remains to be learned about exactly how it works. However, many scientists believe that learning a second language helps improve mental capacities. Our overall capacity for learning may improve due to bilingual education, especially when it begins at a young age, since the human brain develops the most in childhood.

Bilinguals focus their attention more easily in the face of distractions. They also display greater agility in switching from one task to another. According to a 2012 study , “bilingualism has positive effects at both ends of the age spectrum: Bilingual children as young as seven months can better adjust to environmental changes, while bilingual seniors can experience less cognitive decline.”

2. Sharpens Social and Emotional Skills

Young bilingual children learn to follow social cues to determine which language to use, depending on the person and the setting. As a result, bilingual children as young as age three have demonstrated a head start on tests of perspective-taking and theory of mind. 

The results of this 2018 study demonstrate that children with a larger bilingual receptive vocabulary who frequently spoke both languages over a longer period of time had better social-emotional and behavioral skills.

Hear Your Child Speak Spanish! Your Free Trial Class Is Waiting ➡️

3. Increases School Engagement and Academic Success

For 30 years, Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier, a team of professors emeritus at George Mason University in Virginia, have collected evidence on the benefits of bilingual education. In studies across six states and 37 districts, they found that dual-language students earn higher test scores and seem to be happier in school, compared with students in English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion. In addition, attendance is better, behavioral problems fewer, and parent involvement higher.

4. Promotes Diversity and Integration

In general, US public school classrooms are becoming more segregated by race and class. Yet, dual-language programs are often an exception. Because they are composed of native English speakers deliberately placed together with immigrants, they tend to be more ethnically and socioeconomically balanced. And some evidence points to the idea that this educational method helps kids of all backgrounds gain comfort with diversity and different cultures.

Parents Love Singing These Bilingual Songs With Their Little Ones

4 cons of bilingual education, 1. programs are inconsistent over time.

Some school districts don’t offer a bilingual education as an option, and of those that do, many only offer a bilingual education program in elementary and middle school, not at the high school level. As a result of this inconsistency, some students may lose some of their second language abilities. For a bilingual education to be effective, it must continue throughout the students’ academic career—and throughout their lives.

2. Target-Language Content Can Cause Learning Challenges

Learning specific content in a second language can be difficult for younger children. Many districts’ bilingual education programs teach half the subjects in English and the rest in Spanish. For example, if math is in Spanish and a student is struggling with fractions at the same time that they struggle with Spanish grammar and vocabulary, it negatively impacts their education.

What’s more, students who struggle with the target language may find themselves overwhelmed with the necessity to learn it instead of participating in other activities. These students may lose out on opportunities to partake in extracurricular projects, athletic teams, and other school organizations. 

3. Its Effectiveness Is Unclear for Grades K-3

In a major meta-analysis funded by the US Department of Education that looked at bilingual and two-way programs compared to English-only programs for English learners, researchers concluded: “Evaluations conducted in the early years of a program (Grades K-3) typically reveal that students in bilingual education scored below grade level (and sometimes very low) and performed either lower than or equivalent to their comparison group peers.”

4. Programs Suffer From a Lack of Qualified Staff

Effective bilingual education is immersive—meaning the teachers and teaching assistants are fluent in both languages they teach. They must be also professionally trained in pedagogy and classroom management. Finding a sufficient number of professional bilingual teachers is often a challenge for some school districts.

Final Thoughts on Bilingual Education

Like anything, bilingual education has its pros and cons. However, in my experience, both as a teacher and with regard to my daughter’s bilingual learning journey, I see that the benefits greatly outweigh the cons. Bilingual education is an absolutely worthy endeavor and a wonderful aspect of lifelong learning. Where do you stand on bilingual education? In your opinion, is it worth it or not? Leave a comment and join the conversation!

Ready for bilingual tools, lessons, and strategies for learning Spanish at home? Check out these posts!

• What Is An Umbrella School?
• The Best Homeschool Spanish Curriculum at HSA
• From Burnout to Balance: Creating a Healthy Happy Homeschool Routine
• 10 Homeschooling Styles You Need to Explore in 2023
• Local Learning Networks: Finding Homeschool Co-ops Near You
• Home Sweet Classroom: Creating Engaging Spanish Lessons at Home
• 10 Websites Offering Short Stories in Spanish for Beginners
• Can Homeschoolers Participate in Sports?
• Recent Posts
• Master All the Forms of Ser in Spanish: Your Ultimate Grammar Guide - July 18, 2024
• 10 Innovative Contemporary Latin American Artists Who Broke the Mold - February 16, 2023
• The Sweetest Guide to Valentine’s Day Vocabulary in Spanish - February 14, 2023

Related Posts

4 essential elements of an effective homeschool spanish curriculum, which online spanish program is best for my child three great options to consider, why hsa’s spanish tutoring is the most effective for your child, spanish classes online: why you want immersion style, 4 comments on this post.

I’m glad! Thank you for reading.

It’s cool that you mention that getting a bilingual education can help make a child more academically successful. I want my son to have a successful academic career, so I’m thinking about enrolling him in a dual language immersion program soon. I’m going to see if there’s a good dual language immersion program in the area that he can attend.

That sounds like a great idea! I’m glad you’re planning on getting a bilingual education for your son. Good luck finding the perfect program for him!

Leave a Comment! Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

From Abakada to ABCs: the 1974 Bilingual Education Policy in the Philippines

Related Papers

14th International Nakem Conference, with the theme “Diversity and Inclusion in Mother Language Education”

Firth McEachern

This paper examines the timing of language introductions and transitions in the Philippine basic education system, in light of legal obligations and research findings. In the Philippines, a variety of native languages are being used in schools as part of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) framework. These languages, or mother tongues, are being implemented as mediums of instruction for the majority of subjects until Grade 3, while English and Filipino (based on Tagalog) are introduced as individual subjects as early as Grade 1. From Grade 4 onwards, English and Filipino are used as the main mediums of instruction. The essential questions that this paper explores are: 1. Is Grade 4 the ideal time to switch to English and Filipino as mediums of instruction? 2. Is Grade 1 the ideal time to introduce English and Filipino as subjects? 3. Will fixing the timing of language introductions and transitions ensure improvements in educational outcomes? In light of current knowledge about cognitive development and language acquisition of children, and empirical evidence from the implementation of multilingual education in various countries (including the Philippines), there is a strong case for extending the use of first languages (i.e. mother tongues) to higher grades, with a more gradual introduction of and transition to other languages. Considering the divergent ideologies of language in the country, however, the scientifically advisable path is not always the most politically viable. Furthermore, the great diversity of learner contexts practically guarantees that one prescribed language-in-education model will fail to meet the needs of the majority of the population. Hence, this paper suggests the adoption of a multi-modal language policy in Philippine education, whereby regions, divisions, or schools could select from several multilingual education models to suit their respective contexts. These models could vary in the number, phasing, and relative proportion of languages in the curriculum.

John Emmanuel Landicho

Bilingual and Multilingual Education

Isabel Pefianco Martin

(Co-authored with Ruanni Tupas) Bilingual education in the Philippines – the use of English in mathematics and science and Filipino, the national language, in all other subjects – is a complex story of postcolonial, neocolonial, nationalist, and ethnolinguistic ideologies and relationships. Thus, the recent law mandating the use of the mother tongues as media of instruction (MOI) in early primary years did not come easy. Called Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), this recent linguistic structure of educational provision had to navigate the intricate discursive terrains of language policy-making in order to find a strategic space from which to articulate alternative and marginalized visions of education and nation-building in the country. This chapter provides a brief history of the language-in-education debates in the country, assesses the hits and misses of bilingual education, and takes stock of the arguments for and against the use of the mother tongues leading to the promulgation of a comprehensive basic education law which includes MTB-MLE. In the end, however, languages-in-education are never just about languages alone; they are about struggles for power and for contending visions of the nation. MTB-MLE promises to address different forms of inequities in Philippine society, but ideological and structural challenges against it are massive and relentless.

Martin, Isabel Pefianco. 2006. Language in Philippine Classrooms: Enfeebling or Enabling? Asian Englishes Journal. 9 (2), 48-66.

"This research project investigates linguistic conventions of oral interaction in Science courses in selected Philippine tertiary-level institutions. In particular, the project seeks to study the practice of code switching among Filipino tertiary-level teachers and students. Courses in Science are expected to be delivered in English. However, there is widespread perception that Filipino teachers and students freely code-switch. Many school administrators view this codeswitching practice as undesirable because they believe it is detrimental to the development of English language proficiency among the students. Thus, they respond to this perceived deficiency by imposing a strict English-only policy in their schools. This analysis of code switching in Science courses in selected Philippine tertiary-level institutions hopes to determine if the practice is beneficial or detrimental to Science education."

ENGLISH FOR ASEAN INTEGRATION: POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN THE REGION, edited by Terance W. Bigalke and Salbrina Sharbawi, Brunei: Universiti Brunei Dharussalam, 2015 (pp. 110-119)

International Journal of Research Studies in Education

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies

This paper calls for an interdisciplinary approach to policy formulation regarding the language of education in the Philippines. It has been long agreed upon that for the students to comprehend pieces of instruction, the medium of instruction is important. Continually shifting policies among three important languages has born different outcomes. However, given their high linguistic diversity, communities in the Philippines have become even moremultilingual and multicultural. Constant and rigorous dynamics among the members of these communities has made some of these policies demode since most of their research database has been exclusively between education and language studies. The bases for the formulation of policies on the language of the education system are the test-results-based outcomes on learning based on experimental settings and sometimes on the advocacies of particular groups. There is indeed a call for other perspectives from different fields and methodologies to contr...

Safary Wa-Mbaleka

The instruction of English in the Philippines causes quite some challenges to scholars due to its rich linguistic diversity. With more than 180 languages currently recorded in the country, linguistic power struggle is unavoidable, although it may be silent. To make the situation even more complex, the Philippine Government recently launched a new educational policy that promotes learning in mother tongues in earlier years of the child. While this law is based on sound research, it poses quite some challenges to both linguists and educators due to the various linguistic backgrounds found in almost every classroom around the nation. The Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education policy is complex from different perspectives. This paper presents evidence from research and current reality of the Philippines. Then it introduces two models that could potentially yield a positive outcome in the implementation of mother tongue-based education. Both perspectives are prepared primarily based on existing literature and careful critical analysis of the Philippine linguistic context. The author also draws from findings from his previous research on the issue in the Philippines.

Jean Christelle B Nadate

The recent introduction of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education program in the Philippines follows the larger policy and legal trend of localization and indigenization. Its reflects the post-colonial context of Philippine society, one that recalls both policy failures and successes in diverse domains of governance. As with all the other nation-wide programmatic decentralization that has antedated it, the nascent stages of this new experiment promise to bring conflicts and implementation issues.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Beatriz Lorente

Isaac Donoso

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (CJMS)

Cognizance Journal Multidisciplinary Studies

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics

Christopher J. Dawe

International Journal of Islamic Thought

Sharon Dreisbach

The paradox of Philippine education and education …

Yvette Torres

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Catherine Young

Martin, Isabel Pefianco. 2012. Diffusion and directions English language policy in the Philippines. In Low Ee Ling and Azirah Hashim. (eds.) English in South East Asia: Features, Policy, and Language in Use, pp. 189-205.

Ahmar Mahboob

John Albert Nares

The Politics of English in Asia: Language Policy and Cultural Expression in South and Southeast Asia

Marlon Mandane Gacis

Southeast Asian Review

Ronel Laranjo

Aj Garchitorena

Philippine ESL Journal

Carlo Magno

Juliet Trujillo

Clark Dominic Alipasa

Prixie Cruz , Ahmar Mahboob

Philippine Journal of Linguistics

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

Catalina Canasa

The Archive Special Publication No. 17

Louward Allen Zubiri

Patricia Velasco

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the Philippines : Its success and struggle

• Temps de lecture : 9 min de lecture
• Auteur/autrice de la publication : education_south
• Publication publiée : 18 mars 2021
• Post category: Langues
• Commentaires de la publication : 0 commentaire

Partager Partager ce contenu

• Ouvrir dans une autre fenêtre X
• Ouvrir dans une autre fenêtre Facebook
• Ouvrir dans une autre fenêtre WhatsApp
• Ouvrir dans une autre fenêtre LinkedIn

From JD, national correspondant of MeridiE in the Philippines

Introduction

To read and understand a simple text is one of the most fundamental skills a child can learn. Evidence indicates that learning to read both early and at a sufficient rate are essential for learning to read well, and consequently understanding what is read. The Government of the Philippines has placed high priority on improving literacy and is currently undertaking comprehensive reform initiatives including curricular reforms and implementation of a mother-tongue based multilingual education ( MTB-MLE ) program in 19 national languages.

The Philippines is an ethnically diverse country and there are 181 documented individual languages. Four of which are already extinct (no known speakers) and 24 of which are dying or going extinct, according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines. National languages unite a country, promote nationalism, and are a symbolic representation of a nation.

In the year 2012, the Department of Education (DepEd) implemented the use of Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education in all public schools, specifically in Grades 1, 2, and 3. At first, there are 12 Languages selected to use in different regions such as; Tagalog , Kapampangan , Pangasinense , Iloko , Bikol , Cebuano , Hiligaynon , Waray , Tausug , Maguindanaoan , Maranao and Chabacano . However, in the year 2013, 7 more languages are added in the MTB-MLE such as, Ybanag , Ivatan , Sambal , Aklanon , Kinaray-a , Yakan , and Surigaonon .

In South East Asia, the Philippines is the only country to have instituted a national policy requiring Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the primary school years (source: Mother Tongue Education: Prioritizing Cognitive Development ). Hence, the Philippines is being looked at as an example for the rest of the region for the implementation of MTB-MLE. This brings forth an argument to the complex issue of language policy in education which offers a challenging environment for implementing a language policy that will serve the whole country.

Methodology

In this article, 10 teachers from different regions in the Philippines who speak their own regional languages were asked via an email interview about their insights and experiences on utilizing MTB-MLE as language of Instruction as well as a separate subject area. 6 of which declined to avoid sensitive issues while teaching in the Public Elementary Schools. Among 4 of them agreed to be email interviewed but subjected to their availability as they were currently preparing for the yearly  “Brigada Eskwela” or the National Schools Maintenance week.

Map 1. The Philippine map showing the widely spoken languages in the Philippine households.

Figure 2. English words translated to various Regional Languages in the Philippines. Similarities of the different regional Languages are because of its Austronesian Language origin and the influence of many other language groups throughout the Philippine history and as well being influenced by each other.

According to a Teacher from Davao City, Region XI, who uses the regional Language Sinugbuanong Binisaya or Cebuano as a medium of instruction, makes the teachers comfortable in the thorough explanation of their lessons. It also helped both teachers and students in a broader understanding of the lessons since it is exemplified using MTB-MLE. She also mentioned that children are given the opportunity to be more oriented in their native dialect, they can share and express their thoughts at an early age during a discussion of the lesson. Also, the reading level of pupils developed now that MTB-MLE is used compared to days when it was not yet implemented.

A teacher from Region II (Nueva Vizcaya) who uses Tagalog as a language of instruction reiterated that, some learners can easily understand the content in the learning areas which are being taught in MTB-MLE and that learning in regional languages during the early grades helped improve students’ understanding of lessons thus quickly grasping the lessons being taught.

In Region VII (Central Vizayas), Cebuano is the language of instruction. According to one of their teachers, MTB-MLE helped in the process of letting the learners know what to understand and that it is easier for the teachers to transmit what needs to understand by the learners.

In Region II (Cagayan Valley), particularly in Cagayan Ybanag is the language of instruction. According to one of the Teachers there, when in their first language learners learn to read more quickly, made the lessons more interactive and that this enhances the pride of the learners’ heritage, language and culture.

According to this interview of Teachers from different regions in the Philippines using their regional languages, the biggest benefit of MTB-MLE is that learners increased their understanding of classroom content (increased comprehension) that in mother tongue they can learn all the words and they can understand. The slow learners also benefited a lot in the MTB-MLE because they can easily learn it.

English and Filipino (Official Languages) are predominantly used for different functions [churches, religious affairs, print and broadcast media, business, government, medicine, the sole language of the law courts, and the preferred medium for textbooks and instruction for secondary and tertiary levels].

Utilizing the MTB-MLE policy, arises a concern that this could cultivate a lower English skill despite the positive responses toward the MTB-MLE. The transition period from Grades 1, 2, and 3 thru Grades 4, 5 and 6 is also a crucial phase for learners as they are being introduced to a second (Filipino) and third language (English). Teachers also have to contend with limited educational resources in local languages

 Here is what the Teachers of different regions have to say:

“When learners reach into higher levels, they will have possibilities for another language struggle. I have observed difficulties in the transition period, that is from grade 3- grade 4 in which the medium of instruction used is already in English in some learning areas. Pupils will have difficulties since English is used as medium of instruction already. It could have a long-term effect that children can no longer speak English fluently when in fact they need the skills most importantly for global competitiveness. Another disadvantage I observed is in the aspect of “how deep (reading level) is the comprehension of the students. In my opinion, reading with comprehension is more important.” -Region XI

“There are plenty of training for teachers in teaching MTB-MLE. Materials are available but not enough to suffice all the needs of the students. Teachers are equipped with knowledge, but the availability of the materials for students’ utilization are not enough” – Region XI

“During the transition of English and Filipino as language of instruction in Grades 4, 5, and 6, pupils have difficulties. Thus, resulting to low-quality English-speaking learners. Learners have the difficulty in adjusting to their intermediate grade lessons most especially the learning areas which used MTB-MLE as medium of instruction like Math and Science. Teachers have to make necessary adjustments with regards to their strategies as well as their instructional materials so as to adhere with MTB-MLE.” – Region II

“Professional exams, the board exams, the bar exams are mostly written in English or sometimes Filipino not in any regional languages. That is a fact where the Mother Tongue becomes imperative to learn or utilize as a medium of instruction. The concern is about the ability of learners to possibly complete their education successfully if they did not develop English skills.” – Region I

Figure 3. A typical classroom setup in the Philippines where both pupils and teacher are interactive in their class.

Teachers’ Recommendations to Policy Makers

• Policy makers and some expert in the DepEd should make MTB-MLE as a separate subject, not as the medium of instruction in some learning areas in kindergarten to grade three. This will help the students familiarize the native dialect without having difficulty in learning Filipino and English.
• Policy makers should consider the long-term effect of using MTB-MLE as a teaching learning method.
• More trainings, activities, and sustaining the resources needed to effectively utilize the MTB-MLE.

Vous devriez également aimer

What is the regional learning achievement data from SEA-PLM 2019 telling us on the quality of primary education in the Philippines ?

La chute de babel : les langues d’instruction, education et développement dans les pays du maghreb, leave a reply annuler la réponse..

• Coopération internationale
• Enseignants
• Environnement
• Faits et chiffres
• Institutions scolaires
• Méthodologie
• Nouvelles technologies
• Santé et COVID-19
• Infographies, images libres et data visualisation
• ONGS et coalitions éducation
• Outils et logiciels libres
• Programmes d’évaluations des acquis
• Sites et blogs institutionnels
• Sites personnels ou privés
• Syndicats d’enseignants et du personnel de l’éducation
• L’ASSOCIATION
• À PROPOS DU BLOG

Après dix ans de production sans cesse, notre blog est maintenaint en travaux . Plus de contenus et une nouvelle mise en page vous attendent à partir de septembre.

After ten years of continuous publications, our blog is now under construction . More content and a new layout await you starting this September.

En savoir plus sur De educatione meridie

Abonnez-vous pour poursuivre la lecture et avoir accès à l’ensemble des archives.

Saisissez votre adresse e-mail…

Abonnez-vous

Continue reading

Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire.