filipino - kwf.gov.ph · filipino through programs that would effectively take it through the...

FILIPINO:The NationalLanguage

of Education

Filipino: The National Language of Education

Copyright © 2017, Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino

All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system,without prior permission in writing from the authors and the publisher.

Editor: Manre KilatesBook & Cover Design by MKExecuted in In-Design by Nica GinezCover Photo: Dinadiawan (Aurora) Cliff Face by Laurence Bañez

National Library of the Philippines CIP Data

ISBN

Published by

KOMISYON SA WIKANG FILIPINO Watson Bldg, 1610 J.P. Laurel Street, 1005 Manila Tel. No. (02) 733-7260 • (02) 736-2525 Email:[email protected]•Website:www.kwf.gov.ph

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS 633 General Luna Street, Intramuros, 1002 Manila Tel. No. 527-2192 to 97 • Fax: 527-2191 to 94 Email:[email protected]•Website:www.ncca.gov.ph

The National Commission for Culture and the Arts is the overall coordination and policymaking government body that systematizes and streamlines national efforts in promoting culture and the arts. The NCCA promotes cultural and artistic development: conserves and promotes the nation’s historical and cultural heritages; ensures the widest dissemination of artistic and cultural products among the greatest number across the country; preserves and integrates traditional culture and its various expressions as dynamic part of the national cultural mainstream; and ensures that standards of excellence are pursued in programs and activities. The NCCA administers the National Endowment Fund for Culture and the Arts (NEFCA).

Contents

Introduction:What the KWF is Hard at Work For, and Not Against

KWF Statement on HB 5091:Unconstitutional, Misinformed, Unnecessary

Revisiting the Bilingual Educational Policy:Why was It Abandoned?

Appendices

A. Department Order No. 25, s. 1974 “Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education”

B. Department Order No. 50, s. 1975 “Supplemental Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Instruction at Tertiary Institutions”

C. MEC Order No. 22, s. 1978, “Pilipino as Curricular Requirement in the Tertiary Level”

D. DECS Order No. 52, s. 1987 “The 1987 Policy of Bilingual Education” E. DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987 “Implementing Guidelines for the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education”

5

9

21

41

44

45

61

64

This is what is crucial in the development of an intellectualizedlanguage:eachdomain,sub-domainandsub-sub-domain(fieldof specialization)hasspecificregisters…Thetaskof developingtheregisters of the various areas of knowledge in Filipino and educating the populations who can command and use these registers are formidable tasks in the intellectualization of the languange.

—Bonifacio P. Sibayan The Intellectualization of Filipino

The advice based on investigations and experience of literacyexperts is that the best way to teach a second language is byenablingthestudentstomasterthefirstlanguagetothepointofcritical thinking; these skills can then be transferred to the secondlanguage. In spite of this evidence, Philippine decision makers andparents continue to insist on English as early as possible, eventhough that hinders children’s ability to think critically in themother tongue or at least in the national language which isstructurally similar to the mother tongue.

—Bro. Andrew Gonzales, F.S.C. Former Secretary of Education

The most important relationship between language and culturethat gets to the heart of what is lost when you lose a language isthat most of the culture is in the language and is expressed in thelanguage. Take it away from the culture, and you take away itsgreetings,itscurses,itspraises,itslaws,itsliterature,itssongs…its wisdom, its prayers. The culture could not be expressed andhanded on in any other way. What would be left?

— Joshua Fishman

Revisiting the BEP 5

INTRODUCTION:What the KWF is Hard at Work For,and Not Againstby Virgilio S. Almario

This is ourfirstpublicationentirelyinEnglishbecausetheKomisyonsaWikangFilipino would like to address especially its friends who are more at home in reading English text.

WealsotakethisopportunitytodefineourrelationshipwithEnglishas a medium of instruction and to clarify our policy that the Komisyon is not against English. Instead, we wish to call to mind the language provisions of our Constitution, which mandates, among other things, that “The national language is Filipino,” and that “Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as amedium of official communication and as language of instructionintheeducationalsystem.”(Section6,ArticleXIV;furtherspecificprovisions are cited elsewhere in this monograph.)

In view of the KWF mandate as the sole government agency for language, its preeminent objective has always been to develop and promote Filipinothroughprogramsthatwouldeffectivelytakeitthroughtheidentifiedstages of language development, from standardization and nationalization to modernization and intellectualization, while maximizing limited resources. (These are the same stages English itself has undergone in the course of its own history.)

At the same time, due to our multicultural and multilingual society, KWF is tasked to look after the development and welfare of the country’s other native languages.

6 Revisiting the BEP

Given the Constitutional provisions on language, it is a wonder why some of our leaders and certain parties often act as if unaware or simply ignoring them precisely, and would even work at cross-purposes with the KWF’s efforts or undermine its achievements.

Among the current examples of the foregoing, foremost is HB 5091 introduced by Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, or “An Act to Strengthen and Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction in the Educational System.” Apart from distortedly blaming Filipino or the bilingual system for the “deterioration” of English instruction, HB 5091 is, to say the least, unconstitutional and entirely unnecessary.

At the same time, even our educators tend to misinterpret the law. In the implementation of the K-12 and the Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Educationcurriculum(MTB-MLE),forinstance,thefirstactof somecollegeeducators and administrators was to either wipe out or degrade Filipino and other subjects.

That is why KWF is hard at work, again not against English, but to restore Filipino as the primary language of instruction. We are currently campaigning to set aright the whole educational curriculum by harmonizing content, or establishing a common, consistent, and quality content in Filipino aswellasEnglish.If wemustexertallefforttoenhanceproficiencyinEnglish,equallywemustenhanceproficiencyandcompetence inFilipino.Again, it isnot KWF’s mandate to work against English; its mandate is to develop and substantiate Filipino as the National Language.

It is the same reason we must catch up by conducting our own study and evaluation of the bilingual policy because there was never any serious and published effort in such direction; and to shed light on how it seemed so casually abandoned in the advent of MTB-MLE, without ever looking at how it mighthavebenefittedoraffectedanyfutureeffortsbeforeshiftingpolicies.

For many advocates of Filipino, the challenge has always been the procurement and integration of entries from the native languages into a continually developing national language. Efforts and initiatives by the Filipinas


Institute of Translation (FIT), for example, have always been supported by KWF. These are the twin and alternating annual conferences called 1) Sawikaan, where proponents present and defend their proposed candidates to “Salita ng Taon” (Word of the Year), and 2) Ambagan, where advocates from the regions present the most viable words from the native languages which theyhaveidentifiedasnewentriestothenationallanguage.Theresultsof bothSawikaan and Ambagan, including all candidates to the Salita ng Taon, provide new entries in the new editions of the Filipino Dictionary.

These are some of the ways the national language must be cultivated asanefficientlanguageof communicationandinstructioninthevariousfieldsof knowledge or areas of academic discipline.

In the same direction, KWF now is actively engaged in the art and science of translation and in training competent practitioners through an intensivecertificatecourse.Thepurpose is toservetheneedsof thevariouslanguages of the Philippines especially in the use of these languages in the MTB-MLE curriculum, as well in the translation requirements of government communications, business, the diaspora and diplomacy.

Simultaneously, the Komisyon is fast building its library of knowledge under its enormous Aklat ng Bayan translation program. It has engaged leading writers in Filipino to translate the best works in the various Philippine languages and in English, translate world literature classics and contemporary works, while publishing Filipino books on language research and incentivizing technical writing in Filipino through generous awards for scientific and philosophicaltreatises and doctoral theses written in Filipino.

Again, these are by way not only of making available outstanding literary and technical works to readers in the Filipino language, but also to make such materials available to teachers to enable them to teach not just the Filipinolanguageandgrammarbutpreciselytoteachsubjectsinotherfieldsof discipline such as science and math, or economics and engineering, in Filipino.


On the other hand, this is not to deny the role of English in Philippine life and economy. There is no downplaying the fact that the burgeoning call center, business processing, and back-office service industries have all beenmadepossiblebecausemanyof usareproficientinEnglish.Certainly,Englishequips us to perform and compete in an English-speaking world.

Still, and especially in a multilingual and multicultural context, a nation can earnestly talk to itself only through a language understood by all the people. AstheKWFmustconstantlyreminditself,tofunction,itmustkeepafirmgripon its sole mandate for the National Language, which is simply to realize its role as a strong glue for a diverse people. In fortifying our sense of being a nation, we can only enhance our manifold linguistic heritage, but never make it work against our unity.

A National Language enables us to know ourselves, and internally strengthenusaswegooutintotheworld.Aself-awareFilipinocitizen,confidentabout his own identity and enriched by self-knowledge—which includes knowledge of his own culture and history, the strengths, as well weaknesses of his own people—is the one most prepared to be a citizen of the world.

Virgilio S. AlmarioChairmanNational Artist for Literature


KWF STATEMENT ON HB 5091:

Unconstitutional, Misinformed, Unnecessary

The komisyon sa wikang filipino (kwf), the sole government agency tasked with thepropagationanddevelopmentof Filipino,thenationalandofficiallanguage,andtheothernativelanguagesof thePhilippines,takesafirmexceptiontotheproposed legislation, House Bill (HB) 5091 “An Act to Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction in the Educational System” introduced by Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

As the sole government agency for language, KWF has opposed previous efforts against the National Language, not least of which was HB 8460 or the Gullas Bill of 2009, which would have made English the sole medium of insruction from Grade 4 to high school. This measure was quashed in the Senate. This latest attempt by Rep. Macapagal Arroyo, which is in fact a recycling of her similar previous efforts, must be nipped in the bud, if only to demonstrate the ultimate irrationality of her indefatigable efforts to undermine, if not completely negate, the continuing achievements in the development of thenationalandofficiallanguage.

Ourfirmobjections toHB5091 arebasedon theobviousdefectsof the Bill, which are that 1) It is ab initio unconstitutional; 2) It is founded on apparently misinformed assumptions on language and education; and 3) It is superfluousandunnecessaryunder theprevailing lawsandnationalpolicyon language and the medium of instruction under the national educational system. At the same time, HB 5091 is, by point of fact, unnecessary since the operational and existing, and actually spoken lingua franca all over the archipelago is Filipino. And based on several historical surveys and common experience, the lingua franca has been and is up to now, Filipino.


Allow us to explain in more detail.

Unconstitutional

First, HB 5091 is obviously unconstitutional because it runs counter to the express language provisions of the fundamental law of the land, which are as follows:

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 officialcommunication and as language of instruction in the educational system.1

It is evident in these provisions that Filipino is the mandated primary medium of instruction, even if it is further provided that:

Forpurposesof communication and instruction, theofficiallanguages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.2

Again, it is patent in these provisions that English is the provisionary language. On the basis, too, of the second paragraph of Section 6, the Constitution mandates the government to “take steps to initiate and sustain the use” of Filipino and not English. As it is, English is already the medium of instruction for much of tertiary education, and no effort has been taken to enhance the use of Filipino, as provided by law.

Based on the language provisions of the Constitution, HB 5091 is patently unconstitutional, anti-Filipino, and against pedagogical principles

1 Article XIV, Section 6, 1987 Constitution.2 Ibid., Article XIV, Section 7.


established by UNESCO3 (the importance and indispensability of the Mother Tongue in cognitive formation), by proposing among other things that:

• English shall be used as medium of instruction in 70% of school subjects and institutions, including experimental/laboratory schools and non-formal and vocational or technical education institution4;

• The use of Filipino is limited to 10% of standardized tests5;• Focuswillbeontheevaluationof proficiencyintheEnglish

language6.

By nature and purpose, HB 5091 is a direct assault on the indigenous Philippine languages aswell as Filipino, the operational national and officiallanguage and lingua franca which, precisely because of the country’s multilingual culture is recognized as a unifying agent for the diverse regional cultures and languages. The existing National Language is also for various reasons an empowering element for the overwhelming number of Filipino people, especially the underprivileged, who are in many ways excluded from both education and development because English has proven to be an obstacle to learning and thinking.

Erroneous, Misinformed Assumptions

HB 5091 also states, as one of its guiding principles in the Explanatory Note, that the bilingual policy introduced by the former DECS in 1974 resulted in “the learning of the English language suffer[ing] a setback. One reason is what linguists call language interference. Targeting the learning of two languages (English and Pilipino [sic]) is too much for the Filipino learners, especially in the lower grades. And if the child happens to be a non-Tagalog speaker, this task actually means learning two foreign languages at the same time, an almost impossible task.”

3 UNESCO, “Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Back-grounds: Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years.” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002122/212270e.pdf4 Section 4, House Bill 5091.5 Ibid., Section 6.6 Ibid., Section 7.


Firstly, the bilingual policy has been supplanted by MTB-MLE (Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education), by virtue of Department of Education Order #74, Series of 2009, and within the new K-12 Curriculum Programme, by virtue of RA 10533, and the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. This the proponents of HB 5091 should know thoroughly. Among the principles of this UNESCO researched and recommended educational policy is that children, especially those in the lower grades, learn the most basic language skills better, among which are cognitive skills and idea-formation, in their mother tongue, and not in a foreign language.

The latest neurological research7 states that “young children all around the world can and do acquire two languages simultaneously. In fact, in many parts of the world, being bilingual is the norm rather than an exception…[and] There is evidence that being bilingual makes the learning of a third language easier.”

Secondly, Tagalog (the basis for the National Language) is not a foreign language, as the proponents confusedly state. English is the foreign language. By the basic linguistic principles of language families, Tagalog, Bisaya, Bicol, Ilocano, Kapampangan and other Philippine languages, belong to the hugeAustronesian language family that is spoken in thePacific region fromMadagascar to New Zealand. This is our language family, not English, which belongs to the West Germanic and Anglo-Frisian families from halfway around the world. In terms of grammar, usage, and language similarities, it is more natural for a child to learn a second native language than a foreign one.

Contrariwise, if the learning of English indeed suffered a setback, it is still, as everyone knows, the language preferred in business and government and by our college-educated middle class, and is very much the dominant languageand the language of power in our society, as a result of which it has certainly spawnedaprofitablebusiness-processingandITindustry.Thatcannotresultfrom a “setback,” but has, in fact, excluded themasses who have difficultylearning English and through English. We have witnessed and continue to

7 Ramirez, Naja Ferjan, “Why the baby brain can learn two languages at the same time.” http://theconversation.com/why-the-baby-brain-can-learn-two-languag-es-at-the-same-time-57470


witness blatant disenfranchisement of the Filipino masses in the national development mainly because the country’s power domains are indifferent to the fundamental linguistic right of the people.

On the other hand, staring us from the other side of the issue is another fallacy that must be closely considered: HB 5091 states that English proficiency is closely linked to quality education and global competitiveness.If that is so, then why did our Asian neighbors, such as China, South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan, of course, economically and otherwise grow by leaps and bounds, while using their own native tongues?

Language Policy

KWF, by mandate and function, has long been aware of the history of policy and research on the issue of language and has taken into serious consideration the works of leading Filipino linguistics experts especially on the issue of intellectualization, or the use of the national language in various domains of knowledge and power.

The late and former Secretary of Education, Bro. Andrew Gonzales, F.S.C. said,

“For language to be cultivated intellectually, it must be used and not just studied. If school policy makers choose not to use the national language in certain academic domains, the language will not be cultivated for higher cognitive activities inthatfieldof specialization.It is,of course,easier toreacha stage of critical thinking in one’s native language or mother tongue and it takes special tutoring and practice to cultivate a second language for purposes of higher order thinking. In the Philippines, because of the lack of financial resources,the national language has not been sufficiently developed asa language of intellectual discourse. English competence, once attained, becomes a highly effective tool of intellectual discourse and learning of the world’s knowledge. However, the


number of those in the system who reach such an advanced stage in a second language such as English is bound to be small and elitist.” 8 (Italics provided.)

Bro. Andrew also remarked on the misplaced intransigence of the Philippine decision makers, which includes educational leaders, parents, and legislators on the use of English in children and young people’s acquisition of knowledge:

“The advice based on investigations and experience of literacy experts is that the best way to teach a second language is by enablingthestudentstomasterthefirstlanguagetothepointof critical thinking; these skills can then be transferred to the second language. In spite of this evidence, Philippine decision makers and parents continue to insist on English as early as possible, even though that hinders children’s ability to think critically in the mother tongue or at least in the national language which is structurally similar to the mother tongue. This partially explains the problems of language and quality in Philippine education today.9 (Italics provided.)

Intellectualization

The contemporary history of the national language and language policy in the country and (excluding colonial policy) spans the decades from Philippine Independence to the present. From the “enlightened legislation” (according to Br. Andrew Gonzales) of the 1935 Constitution under President Quezon to the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, the spirit of the search for and designation of a national language has always been towards the full development of the National Language, Filipino, based on a native language, Tagalog. In the same manner, all the language policies of the country, from bilingual competence (Filipino and English) to the MTB-MLE have been towards the ultimate attainment of monolingual competence in the National Language.

8 Gonzales, Andrew and Bonifacio Sibayan, Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines (1974-1985).9 Ibid.


It is towards such vision that the KWF has been rectifying and remedying past inadequacies in the implementation of the Constitutional provisions on language and the implementation of its mandate. It has maximized limited resources to undertake the most basic language planning, is continuously producing intellectual, technical, and literary materials in Filipino through publication and translation, and conducted nationwide campaigns to restore the use and proper position of Filipino as the National Language and medium of instruction in public education.

Since 2013, despite its severe handicap on resources, KWF has pursued broad-based campaigns for language standardization and nationalization, and modernization and intellectualization. As of this writing, KWF has published various references and manuals on language, literature, and the social and natural sciences in the Filipino language under the program Aklat ng Bayan. The translation of world classics and Filipino literature in English or regional languages, plus technical and laymen’s books in the various sciences, is an ongoing activity involving the country’s best writers who have been engaged to undertake the translations.

The publications include Ortograpiyang Pambansa and its partner volume KWF Manual sa Masinop na Pagsulat, supplemented by Korespondensiya Opisyal and Mga Pangalan ng mga Tanggapan ng Pamahalaan. These are the technical manuals the KWF uses in its roving seminar-workshop series on the Filipino language and its usage, called the Uswag: Dangal ng Filipino (for the Filipino teachers) and the Seminar sa Korespondensiya Opisyal (for the Filipino government employee). In fact, there is an overwhelming positive response from various government agencies and local government units to use the Filipino language in providing and conducting management, services, and public information campaigns. KWF has also intensified its interagency translationservices, undertaking the translation of important legislation, agency manuals, brochures, articles, and other official references, includingmost recently thecompilation of a lexicon of meteorological terms under the title, Gabay sa Weder Forkasting published in coordination with Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA).


In pursuit of its intellectualization and modernization program for the National Language, KWF organizes extensive and well-represented annual national conferences on language, covering such topics as peace in Mindanao (held in Bukidnon), translation (Iloilo), language planning (Pangasinan), environmental safety (Legazpi), and Filipino as the language of knowledge (Baguio City), where language practitioners talked and demonstrated the use of Filipino in teaching the sciences such as math, economics, banking, engineering, and physics.

From these national language congresses emerged important resolutions promulgated by the participants, as follows:

• In the National Congress on the Intellectualization of the Filipino Language, held last 1-5 August 2016, the more than 500 participants from various parts of the country passed Kapasiyahan Blg. (Resolution No.) 2016-1 recommending to all academic institutions and agencies of the government to use Filipino as medium of instruction in various disciplines. (A copy of which is attached hereto.)

• In the National Summit on the Language of Peace, the very select representatives of numerous ethnic groupings of the Philippines (composed of Datus, Bae, Maaram, binukot, youth, teachers, Indigenous Peoples’ Mandated Representatives, or IPMR, local officials, etc. representing the more than 150 participants) passedKapasiyahan Blg. (Resolution No.) 2014-1 recommending “the continued use of Filipino and native languages, and for this to be the policy from this day on in order for government to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people and for it to render effective and speedy public service.”

Lingua Franca

Developing, enriching, and preserving of the Filipino language and the native languages of the Philippines, as is the task of the KWF, is such a complex one that it cannot be easily divorced from the culture which speaks it. Our culture has been so encrusted with American elements such as the English


language itself, rock-and-roll, crass commercialism and almost insatiable consumerism. We can speak English, of course, as our educated middle and eliteclassesdorathersoquaintlyandfluentlywithlotsof effort.Butatheart,if we strip ourselves of our Americanisms and Filipino Englishisms, and even if we might be able to remotely translate malasakit, pakikipagkapuwa, and kagandahang-loob into their English equivalents, we still pronounce them in their original form: not with an American twang but from the authentic depths of our Filipino souls.

And that language is what the majority of our people speak together with their native regional languages. And this continually evolving lingua franca is called Filipino. Not really the Taglish as our veteran linguistics expert Bonifacio Sibayan described in one of his older essays, but the Filipino that is continually being enriched by entries from the native or regional languages, or the different accents they speak it within their provinces, regions, residences, domains of life, knowledge, and power.

Going by historical surveys, in the national censuses made from 1939 to 1980, the speakers of the national language increased from 4,068,565 to 12,019,139, or from 25.4% to 44.4% of the entire population of the Philippines. In 1989, a survey conducted by the Ateneo de Manila University further showed that 92% understood Tagalog, the basis of the Filipino language, 83% could speak it, 88% could read, and 81% could write in it.

As early as 1990, the University of the Philippines Integrated School (UPIS) undertook a six-year experiment using Filipino as language of instruction for all subjects (apart from English) from the elementary grades to high school. Their initial survey from 1995-1996 of 117 UPIS students from Grade 3 to 6 and interviews with 20 teachers of different subjects revealed the following results:

For students: 1) 85% preferred Filipino as language of instruction; 2) 83% said they understood Filipino more than English; and 3) only 11% preferred that Mathematics by be taught in English and 13% preferred that Science be taught in English.


For teachers: 1) 90% used Filipino as language of instruction; 2) 40% said students recited more frequently while using Filipino; 3) 45% said the children more quickly expressed their ideas; 4) 50% said the students learned faster and understood their lessons; 5) only 5% noticed a lower proficiencyin the use of English; and 6) 80% requested that more textbooks and other reading materials be available in Filipino.

While the statistics on lingua franca demonstrate the proliferation of Filipino as the national andofficial language throughout the archipelago,the process of intellectualization and modernization remains a challenge for the country’s language planners, policy makers, and the KWF. “The task of developing the registers of the various areas of knowledge in Filipino,” according to Bonifacio Sibayan, “and educating the populations who can command and use these registers are formidable tasks.”10

Still, going by KWF’s more recent experience in its annual congresses on language and its interaction with various sectors, such tasks are no longer so “formidable” as both institutional and individual initiatives have ventured out into the vast and irregular landscape of intellectualization. Several university professors and a smattering of university programs continue to train instructors on “technical” Filipino, as they penetrate the subdomains of economics, business, and math.

The puzzle of legislating for English

With these developments hand-in-hand with a burgeoning call center, businessprocessing,andback-officeserviceindustries, it iscertainlyapuzzlewhy our legislators are so scared of “losing English.” Our American colonizers and our present power structure make sure that we cannot give up English that easy. What we should be afraid of, on the other hand, is losing our own native and regional languages, and our national language. As the American expert on socio-linguistics, language planning and bilingual education, Joshua Fishman, said:

10 Sibayan, Bonifacio, The Intellectualization of the Filipino.


The most important relationship between language and culture that gets to the heart of what is lost when you lose a language is that most of the culture is in the language and is expressed in the language. Take it away from the culture, and you take away its greetings, its curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its songs, its riddles, its proverbs, its cures, its wisdom, its prayers. The culture could not be expressed and handed on in any other way. What would be left? When you are talking about the language, most of what you are talking about is the culture. That is, you are losing all those things that essentially are the way of life, the way of thought, the way of valuing, and the human reality that you are talking about.11

How to communicate with the nation at large then? Or how does the nation communicate with itself with its diversity of languages and cultures? There is always the preferred English of government, business, and the middle class. But there is also the modernizing Filipino that enables our youth to grasp or form clearer ideas, teach them critical or analytical thinking in a more familiar language, and more importantly, make them stronger and more capable citizens, consumers, and functioning participants in the economy. In other words, a familiar language more effectively prepares them to participate in the global arena.

How a nation communicates with itself can only be addressed by a language understood by everybody, even in a multilingual and multicultural context.AsKWFhasalwaysinsisted,itcanonlyfulfillitsmandatebykeepingin sight the unifying value of the Filipino national language. At the same time, our sense of nation must acknowledge, as well as enrich and enhance, our diverse linguistic heritage. We must celebrate diversity but we must not use it as an excuse for disunity.

And again, this complicated task cannot be attained, nor its accompanying issues resolved, by a proposed bill that insists on “strengthening and enhancing” a foreign language like English as the medium of instruction whilebeingbasedonunconstitutional,fallacious,andunscientificgrounds.

11 Fishman, Joshua, “What do you lose when you lose your language?” in Stabi-lizing Indigenous Languages, p. 81.


As it is, not only is HB 5091 unconstitutional and founded on erroneous assumptions, but looking at the implementation and progress of MTB-MLE, made operational by Department of Education Order #74, Series of 2009, and within the new K-12 Curriculum Programme, under RA 10533, and the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, the proposed bill is entirely superfluousandunnecessary.


REVISITING THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION POLICY:Why Was It Abandoned? by Purificacion G. Delima, [email protected]

Recent moves against the constitutionally mandated National Language call for a closer re-inspection of language policies past and present. Specifically,Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s proposed House Bill No. 5091, titled “An Act to Strengthen and Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction (MOI) in the Educational System,” lamely cites the old Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) as the reason for what she describes as “a setback” that “the learning of the English language [has] suffered.” As the claim presents no proof from the circumstances of the BEP itself, it is but fair to revisit the BEP and re-examine all its salient features, including the evaluation results conducted by the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, with Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, co-directing the Bilingual Education Policy Evaluation (BEPE) in 1985—after eleven years of implementation of the language policy.

The 1974 Bilingual Education Policy

The BEP was the initiative of then National Board of Education (NBE), contained in NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s. 1973, upon the recommendation of a Technical Committee. This in response to a growing sentiment for a “nationalistic education” from among student and social activists by installing Pilipino as the MOI in the school system (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 330). TowardthisinitiativetheEducationDepartmenttookamoredefinitivestepbyissuing Department Order No. 25, s. 1974, entitled “Implementing Guidelines


for the Policy on Bilingual Education.” (Cf. Appendix “A”) The Department Orderclearlydefinedthegoalof bilingualismintheschools,thatis,“todevelopa bilingual nation competent in the use of both English and Pilipino.” It was likewise very clear as to the concrete actions to take to implement the policy, the most important of which follow:

b. The use of English and Pilipino as media of instruction shall begin in Grade I in all schools. c. English and Pilipino shall be taught as language subjects in all grades in the elementary and secondary schools to achieve the goal of bilingualism. d. Pilipino shall be used as medium of instruction in the following subject areas: social studies,/social science, character education, work education, health education and physical education. Primary: School year 1978-79 Intermediate: School year 1979-80 First and second year high school: School year 1980-81 Third and Fourth year high school: School year 1981-82

The use of English in all other subjects/courses in the elementary and secondary levels shall likewise be mandatory. (Gonzalez and Sibayan (eds.) 1988, 153)

Based on the above declared guidelines, the attainment of the goal of the BEP was for a ten-year period from 1974 until 1984. Accompanying the stipulated details of the policy were the following strategies:

2. In-service training programs for the development of teachers’ competence in the use of Pilipino as medium of instruction shall be organized on the national, regional, and local levels under the direction of the appropriate personnel of the Department of Education and Culture and its agencies and instrumentalities with the cooperation of teachers’ colleges and universities.


3. All schools/school divisions shall prepare long range plans for teacher in-service training and materials acquisition and/or preparation.

4. Tertiary institutions (collegiate and graduate levels) are given discretion to develop their own schedules of implementation, provided that by the school year 1984, all graduates of tertiary curricula should be able to pass examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their professions. (Ibid.)

Under Department Order No. 25, the bilingual schemes allocates 80% of the subjects in the curriculum to Filipino MOI, and the remaining 20% to English MOI. Regional languanges would continue to function as auxiliary languanges. After a decade from 1974, the bilingual policy was expected to manifest in the skills of teriary level graduates “to pass examinations in Eng;ish AND/OR (emphasis mine) Pilipino for the practice of their professions.” However not until 1985 that the BEP impact wouldbe evaluated and the results presented to re-direct the further impelementationof thelanguagepolicyrevisedaccordingtothefindingsof theBEPE.

The Bilingual Education Policy Evaluation (BEPE)

How did the BEP impact on the learning process of Filipino students after eleven years of implementation?

Working with the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP) in 1985, one year beyond its target 1984 timetable, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports(MECS)aimedatfindingtheanswertothequestion.DirectedbyAndrewGonzalez and Bonifacio P. Sibayan of LSP, the BEPE utilized a multi-dimensional model of evaluation consisting of “achievement test data and perception data fromkeymembersof various sectorsof thePhilippinenational community…in four separate though related studies” (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 331). Sample study participants included teachers and students of exit grade levels—Grade 4, Grade 6 and Fourth Year—in English and Pilipino language subjects,


and in Mathematics and Science, and Social Studies content subjects. In addition, parents,administrators,keyofficialsof governmentandnon-governmentagencies,andofficersof scholarlysocietieswereidentified.

To achieve a more conclusive outcome, other variables were included. Length of exposure to bilingual schooling was assigned as an independent variable; scores in language and content subjects and anchorage factors were treated as dependent variables; and type of community of students, teacher factors and school factors were included as intervening variables. Study methods and instruments used were achievement tests, interviews, classroom visitations, proficiencytests,five-pointattitudinalscales,questionnairesandocularinspectionsof school sites and facilities (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988).

For the study participants, purposive sampling was used as dictated by theobjectiveof thestudy,andstratifiedaccordingtoethno-linguisticgroupingsand their type of community. Though the scale of the study was national, the EvaluationTeamclaimedthatarepresentativesamplewassufficientforamorein-depthdataanalysis,sizebeingunnecessaryforpurpose.Thefinalsix(6)communitytypesidentifiedincludedthe:1)theNationalCapitalRegion,(2)Tagalog(closedcommunity, not a melting pot), (3) Tagalog (open community, a melting pot), (4) Non-Tagalog (closed community, not a melting pot), (5) Non-Tagalog (open community, melting pot), and, (6) Others. One hundred thirty six (136) schools wereidentifiedalloverthecountry,with662classroomsvisited;568teachersof various ages tested; learners observed included Grade 4 : 2,251, Grade 6: 2,328, and Grade 10: 2,592. Because of unequal numbers, and considering the whole country context, the samples had to be weighted for statistically valid comparative procedures based on the actual proportion of the various subgroups represented in the data (Ibid.).

Major Findings

In 1988, Gonzalez and Sibayan reported the results of the multidimensional BEPE, along with three other separate but related studies on “the implementation of the BEP at the tertiary level, the level of awareness of the policy among government and non-government organizations and among parents, and the contributions of the scholarly societies both language oriented and non-


language oriented to the implementation of the policy” (Ibid, p. 3). To say that the BEP made impact on the educational system, the evaluation needed to show significantdatafromthedependentvariables—achievementtestandperceptionfrom key stakeholders of the language program policy coming from various sectors. No later did the Evaluation Team declare that the bilingual education schemewas a fiasco.Unexpected results andfindings summarized in the samepublication provided the enlightenment.

The differentiated use of the two languages—Pilipino and English—in the content subjects, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies, did not show impact onacademicachievement.Rather,socio-economicstatusandtheproficiencyof their teachers in their respective subjects did. Likewise, the type of community, nottheethno-linguisticaffiliation,createdtheimpactontheachievementdataof the learners. Participants from the urban Metro Manila, and those coming from an open community even elsewhere in the country, performed better than their counterparts. Meanwhile, the other intervening variable, length of exposure to the language policy, given the eleven years of policy implementation, was not found a significantpredictorof studentsuccess(Gonzalez1990,inBautista1996).Instead,statisticsshowedsignificantevidenceof adeterioratingeducationalsystem.

From interviews, an interesting finding was the acceptance of theevaluation participants to use English and Pilipino as instructional media in content subjects, but refused to equate medium of instruction with nationalism. Nationalism aside, they opined, Pilipino as a medium of instruction was still a challenge to teachers especially in the secondary and tertiary levels, where specialized terminologies prevailed (Ibid.)

According to Gonzalez (Ibid.), the same BEPE revealed “interesting andunexpectedfindings”,towit:

(1) The BEP created a widening gap between Tagalogs and non-Tagalogs in the educational system. “The formula for success in Philippine education is to be a Tagalog living in Metro Manila, which is highly urbanized, and BEP, p. 5 studying in a private school considered excellent” (Ibid., p. 333);

(2)LearninginPilipinobenefitedfromteachers’useandknowledgeof,andtraining in English, including other resources, which were in English, used in the classroom;


(3) Pilipino language skills transferred to English increasingly, and peaked in Grade 6, i.e., a strong evidence of a genuine developing bilingualism;

(4) Even non-Tagalogs, e.g., Surigao-Cebuanos (surprisingly second) and Pangasinenses (third), were cited as best achievers in Pilipino subject;

(5) Good schools mostly in Metro Manila and urban areas performed excellent job in teaching English and Pilipino;

(6) Pilipino had been accepted as the symbol for unity and national identity, and as a national language; however, English was acknowledged to be necessary for economic reasons alongside Pilipino both as instructional media;

(7) The BEP implementation required a concerted effort of various groups from the government and non-government organizations, including professional testing and certifying agencies and likewise language organizations;

(8) Parents put high hopes on the positive impact of the bilingual policy, even as while all other groups, governmental and non-governmental alike, saw the “deterioration in English competence”;

(9) The Filipino community attributed the achievement gap in English and Pilipino more to the post-war conditions of schools and the educational system, in general, and not to the implemented language policy;

(10) Pilipino was foreseen to be the scholarly discourse in the near future, except not exclusively in the legal domain;

(11) Success and failure in learning in the Philippines were seen as dependent on socio-economic status and competence of schools and their faculty, more than nationalism and country aspirations of the citizens; and,


(12) The development and intellectualization of Pilipino as the language of scholarly discourse would more appropriately happen, not at the bottom of the educational ladder, but at the tertiary level, “where a creative minority of scholars who are both linguistically versatile and knowledgeable in their fields”canpioneerworkintranslationandresearchinPilipino.

Findings of Commissioned Studies

Triangulating empirical data elicited from the main evaluation study by Gonzalez and Sibayan were three other commissioned individual studies that investigated BEP impact from three sectors, namely, tertiary level schools, parents and government and non-government agencies, and scholarly societies. Each study significantly contributed to the creation of a holistic picture for the evaluationscheme.

The BEP at the Tertiary Level. Lorna Z. Segovia of the Research Center of then Philippine Normal College supervised the study that looked into the implementation of the BEP at the tertiary level. Using purposive random sampling, the survey utilized ten (10) ethno-linguistic groups consisting of school administrators, faculty members and student leaders from 94 tertiary schools, proportionately picked from state universities and private schools. Instruments used were interview guides and documentary analysis guides to elicit the intended data.

In her report, the need for the BEP in the tertiary level “was not a priority…consideringthatonlyslightlymorethanonethirdof theschoolsinthisstudy implemented it” ( Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988, 97). For those schools that implemented the BEP, she further stated that there was a lack of a systematized implementation plan resulting in a mere “perfunctory compliance with the MECS order” (Ibid.). Opinions and attitudes of the survey participants who were administrators, faculty members and students showed consensus that Pilipino was a symbol of unity and national identity, and using it as medium of instruction to symbolize nationalism need not be a problem.


Interestingly,findingsfurthershowedthatthestudentparticipantsweremore optimistic about the positive outcome of the BEP in future, including the targetgoalof the languagepolicy todevelop“graduatesof tertiarycurricula…able to pass examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their professions” as stipulated in the implementing guidelines of Department Order No. 25.

Level of Awareness of the BEP among Parents and among Government (GOs) and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). The study that looked into the perceptions of parents and GO and NGO groups was facilitated by Judy Carol Sevilla of the Research Center of De La Salle University. Using the assumption held by the Evaluation Team that there existed certain relationships between and among the variables stipulated, the study further investigated on the influence of such intervening variables as socio-economicinfluence(SES),regionalbackgroundandorganizationalmembership,onparents’perceptions and attitudes. For leaders of GOs and NGOs, the variables investigated were their language background, administrative practices and policies within their organizations and the service targets of their organizations. Data gathering used questionnaireforparentsinidentifiedtertiarylevelschoolsandface-to-facesemi-structuredinterviewforhigh-levelofficersof GOsandNGOs.

On the level of awareness, data showed that both participants’ groups were aware of the existence of the bilingual policy and the separate use of English and Pilipino. However, the GO and the NGO groups claimed varying levels of awareness of parents according to such factors as level of education, involvement in education-related occupations and with children whose schools observe the bilingualpolicy.AconsistentfindingshowedthatparentsfromMetroManilahadthe highest level of awareness and full knowledge of the bilingual education policy. This observation though was more attributed to the “lack of a vigorous, effective information campaign regarding the existence and provisions of BEP” (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988, 110), especially in the non-Tagalog areas.

On the variables perception and attitudes toward the BEP, the three groups revealed differing results. The parents group acknowledged the improved proficiencyof theirchildren’suseof bothPilipinoandEnglish.Theyfurthernotedthat their children in the elementary and secondary had better skills in Pilipino than they had at the same age. This observation though could not be easily attributed


to the bilingual education policy, according to their responses, in view of the lack of a thorough knowledge on the policy and the perceived poor implementation of the policy itself.

Meanwhile, there was a perceived deterioration in the learners’ use of English, but both parents’ group and GO and NGO groups saw this trend as possibly the result of a deteriorating educational system on the whole, particularly the usual twin lack of effective teachers and instructional materials in schools. The GO group had an added perception that, more than the policy itself, the learners’ socio-economic statushad a strong influenceonEnglish learners’ competence.They believed that “better-off families send their children to schools with higher standardsinEnglishskills…andhavemoreopportunitiestouseEnglishintheirdaily life” (Ibid., p. 121). Saying that the BEP generally failed in its purpose, the NGO group cited additional variables such as the “use of regional dialects inside and outside the classroom, limited opportunities for speaking Pilipino in the non-Tagalogregions,influenceof media,andstudents’difficultiesinstudyingtwo(instead of just one) languages” (Ibid., p. 123). On the other hand, the issue on the national language being needed to develop Filipino identity was perceived to be false. Majority of participants believed that Filipinos could still be “nationalistic even without speaking Filipino” (Ibid.).

While the Sevilla study revealed data that did not indicate a positive outcome of the BEP from the perceptions and attitudes of parents, GOs and NGOs, there was optimism attached to the BEP program for its continued implementation to achieve its goal of bilingual competence for the nation. The report said that the greater part of the country “…has come to the point of accepting Pilipino as the Filipino’s linguistic symbol of unity and identity” and that the respondents “foresee that the next ten years will see its (Pilipino) domains expanding and its increasing use even in classrooms.”

However, the report noted the discouraging “insouciance manifested by the Philippine Regulations Commission and the Civil Service Commission,” evident in the continued use of English in both the documentation and communication processesingovernmentoffices,including“thelackof provisionsfortranslationof documents into Pilipino .” The report thus pointed to the “agencies and the sectors needing systematic and deliberate language engineering” efforts for the success of the BEP (Ibid., p. 130).


Contributions of Scholarly Societies to the Implementation of the BEP. In a second evaluation study, Lorna Segovia investigated the contributions of scholarly societies to language-related issues and needs of the country. Using interview schedule as instrument, it listed 70 scholarly organizations, 63 with addresses in Metro Manila and 7 in the provinces. From the list, only 48 societies, or 69% were interviewed, with just one (1) coming from the province. The scholarly groups differed in their disciplinal concerns and groups’ services. Of the 48 societies, 10 were language groups (LGs) concerned with the promotion and development of Pilipino as national language, and 38 were non-language groups (NLGs) with varying concerns. Both groups, however, service students, teachers and professionals, with a few catering to the grassroots population.

Following their own advocacies, both the LGs and the NLGs had their own contributions to the BEP one way or another. Through teacher trainings, seminar-workshops and publications, they were able to put into their agenda the development of Pilipino and English. For Pilipino, both groups were optimistic of its continued expanding domains in Philippine society and as a unifying symbol. For English, while both groups recognized its function “for international relations and wider communication and for science and technology,” there was also the perception of its “diminishing role in Philippine life.” Nonetheless, both groups perceived the need for “English AND Pilipino for functioning effectively in Philippine society even at the highest levels” (Ibid., p. 142).

Implications and Insights

Once installed as the national language in 1936, Tagalog/Pilipino wasdestined toflourish tobe thenational lingua francaof the country.Whilelegitimation of a Philippine national language in the 1935 Constitution arose from a clamor for national identity and solidarity, its spread all over the country grew out of necessity. At the onset of their newfound freedom, there was no stopping the Filipino people from widening their local experience around the country using an intelligible linguistic expression. Individual and national self-improvement and self-fulfillment surpassed isolated pockets of ethnic disagreements and selfishinterests.


Even prior to the 1974 BEP, the Filipino bilingual experience was a reality. Outside the Tagalog areas, the Filipino was naturally a bilingual, speaking one ethnic language and Pilipino. The Filipino trilingual including English in their linguistic repertoire belonged to a very limited elite population. Numerous surveys from 1937 to 1973 provided empirical evidence to this trend. Pilipino usage was found conspicuously prevalent not only in the school system but already in the “mass media, other inter-ethnic communications and everyday business transactions” among “4,064,000 or 25.4% of the total population of 16 million in the 1939 census 29,998,000 or 77% of the population six years old and over (38, 925,000) in the 1980 census count” (Gonzalez 1990 in Bautista 1996, 329). This increasing dominance of Pilipino (renamed later as Filipino in the 1987 Constitution) in many domains, in both oral and written forms, was farther affirmedinmorerecentsurveysbySibayanandSegovia(1982,inGonzalez1990)and by the Commission on the Filipino Language.

Hence, the BEP was simply enhancing this trend of nationalization toward a genuine sovereign status for the Filipino nation. This political and social direction was to have pursued a logical and nationalist recourse with no turning back. The primary caretakers of a truly democratic and nationalistic education goal, following the inspiration of our wartime heroes

and national language leaders, would have been the Philippine government and its relevant agencies, like the education department, local government agencies and civil service institutions.

Without belittling government efforts in the implemented BEP, it was the political will, unperturbed by any outside selfish interests, that wasconspicuously lacking. The Philippine bilingual policy was not without a detailed and determinate vision and plan to achieve its goal. Thus, the following discussion of the supplemental actions taken by the education department needs inclusion in this paper.

Supplemental Department Orders. Then Education Secretary Juan L. Manuel, envisioned a positive outcome of the BEP. In addition to the DepartmentOrderNo.75,s.1974,definingtheprimaryimplementingguidelinesfor the BEP, two other supplemental Department Orders—DO No. 50, s. 1975 (Cf. Appendix “B”), entitled “Supplemental Implementing Guidelines for the


Policy on Bilingual Instruction at Tertiary Institutions” and MEC Order No. 22, s. 1978 (Cf. Appendix “C”), entitled “Pilipino as Curriculum Requirement in the Tertiary Level”—were issued to emphatically repeat the goal of the BEP and to ensure the proper implementation of Pilipino as MOI and language subject in tertiary education, respectively.

Department Order No. 50 clearly stated that,

Courses in English and Pilipino shall be offered in tertiary institutions as part of appropriate curricula pursuant to th policy of bilingual education; furthermore by school year 1984 all graduates of tertiary institutions should be able to pass examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their professions.” (Ibid., Annex B, p. 154)

For its goal of a nationalistic education, the National Board of Education saw the Department of Education at the forefront of the success of the language policy. Toward this end, no less than the Ministry of Education and Cultureitself inMECOrderNo.22requireda“definiteprogramof instructionfor Pilipino in the Tertiary Level”; stipulated a six (6) units requirement of Pilipino in all curricular programs, with 12 units required in Teacher Education curricula; andspecifiedthecoursedescriptionsof two(2)Pilipinocoursesforthesixunitsprogram requirement along with their syllabi content “as patterns and/or reference forconstructionof modifiedsyllabiby the instructorsof the subjects.” TheOrder required the teaching of Pilipino separately as a language course (Pilipino I – Sining ng Pakikipagtalastasan), and as a literature course (Pilipino II – Panitikang Pilipino: Pahapyaw na Kasaysayan at mga Piling Katha).

Additionally, the Order assured the continued competence in the use of Pilipino as MOI and subject both in all school levels by stipulating “a system of using Pilipino in appropriate tertiary level subjects/courses” in two Phases: Phase I—Institutions in Tagalog areas ready to use Pilipino as MOI shall start in school year 1979-1980; all other institutions in non-Tagalog areas shall prepare a transition phase within the period 1979-1982; Phase II—“By school year 1982-1983, Pilipino shall be used as medium of instruction in all schools, colleges, and universities in the following tertiary courses/subjects:


1.) Philippine History and Government with the New Constitution and Public Service (integrated) 2) Rizal’s Life and Works 3) Sociology 4) Economics with Taxation and Land Reform, Cooperative and Consumer Education 5) Current Issues 6) Health Education, Population Education (including Family Planning) 7) Physical Education 8) Home Economics (including Nutrition) 9) Practical Arts 10) General Psychology 11) Ethics 12) Other appropriate subjects (emphasis mine) (Ibid., p. 156)

The same MEC Order stipulated the instruction to institute in-service training programs and the production of appropriate teaching materials organized at the national and regional levels under the “direction of the proper agencies of theMinistryof EducationandCulture…”suchthat“Byschoolyear1980-1981,all students graduating from higher education courses shall have completed as least six (6) units in Pilipino” (Ibid.).

Needless to say, in 1973-1974 the National Board of Education and the Department of Education/Ministry of Education and Culture had effectively laid down the ground works for the creation of an orderly and operational support system for a truly nationalistic education to address the perceived “mis-education” as a result of the use of English as the medium of instruction, a continuation, in their eyes, of the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the United States of America” (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 330). Yet this nationalist vision forthe whole country would persist even beyond the Martial Rule period. For in thesucceeding1987PhilippineConstitution , thenationalandofficial language“Pilipino” in the 1973 Constitution would be declared and renamed “Filipino” and used “for purposes of communication and instruction.


The 1987 BEP. Without a doubt it was the 1987 Constitution that put to rest “ the battle for the selection of the basis of the national language” (Gonzalez1990 inBautista 1996, 210). ThisConstitutiondefinitively stated inSection 6, Article XIV, to wit:

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 as the Congress may deem appropriate,the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino asamediumof officialcommunicationandasalanguageof instructionin the educational system. (Ibid., p. 228)

Given this legal mandate, the Government, through the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued DECS Order No. 52, s. 1987 (Cf. Appendix “D”), entitled “The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education.” This policy sustained the 1974 BEP, but picked up from the insightful results of the 1985 evaluation studies. This toward a more fine-tuned implementation planof the language policy henceforth. Subsequently, DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987 (Cf. Appendix “E”), entitled “Implementing Guidelines for the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education” was released to lead the way.

In DECS Order No. 52, Sec. 2.b (2-4), the 1987 BEP was clear in its goals for the Filipino language, namely, among others:

2.b. (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. (Gonzalez and Sibayan, 1988, 166)

Further, the policy stipulated in 2.b (5) “the maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language of science and technology” (emphasis mine). On hindsight, this provision would


be the realization of MEC Order No. 22 that Pilipino should be used as medium of instruction also in “Other appropriate subjects” in all levels. Yet unfortunately, in DECS Order No. 54 that contained the implementing guidelines of the 1987 BEP, this non-exclusivity condition for the use of English was nowhere stipulated, either wittingly or otherwise.

In a later analysis of the BEP Philippine experience, Gonzalez himself acknowledged that the 1987 BEP would lead to “opening the door in the future to the use of Filipino not only for social science subjects but also for mathematics andthenaturalsciences…andputtheburdenof intellectualizationandcultivationon the universities by enjoining them to come up with creative programs for this purpose” (Gonzalez 1990 in Bautista 1996, 233). The Order stated that: g. 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. (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988, 167)

DECS Order No. 54 detailed the direction for a complete nationalistic education, to include instructions for teaching content subjects, materials and syllabi preparation, teacher training, institutional cooperation and coordination, incentive schemes and other support mechanisms. It stated, “For all subjects to be taught in Filipino, the development of teaching and reference materials as well as training of teachers to teach in Filipino shall be funded” (Ibid., p. 168).

To oversee all these policy requirements, the Order ensured the creation of a Bilingual Education Committee consisting of several institutional bodies and officials,namely:

1. The Bureau Directors (Elementary, Secondary, Tertiary) 2. The Chairperson of the National Language Commission (Institute of Philippine Languages) 3. Representatives from the Language Education Sector and Language Societies (Ibid., p. 169)


Serving for an initial period of three years, but renewable at the option of the Department Secretary, the Bilingual Education Committee was tasked to disseminate information on the language policy to different constituents, submit regular annual reports, compile baseline data on language achievements, and periodically conduct research evaluation studies on the policy implementation for policy revisions, if necessary. At this juncture, it is important to note that the Order required the Committee “to undertake a summative evaluation after ten years of implementation (1987-1997),” a task that the Department of Education today has yettofulfillwellaftermoreorlesstwodecadesfromtherenewedimplementationof the language policy in 1987, and before a new language policy—the Mother Tongue Based-Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)—was institutionalized in 2009.

Insights into the BEP Impasse. Calling it precisely as “Policy reformulation”, Gonzalez, wittingly or unwittingly, found the two language policies issued in 1974 and reformulated in 1987 as “essentially the same” (1990 in Bautista 1996, p. 336). Admittedly, Gonzalez considered the national evaluation of the 1974 language policy a truly daunting task. This because the task involved numerous and varied factors that could impact on the success or failure of the implementation scheme. Thus, he made sure that a “multi-dimensional model” wasused“tomakesureall relevantandsignificant factors impactingonresultsare taken into account” (Ibid.). Direct program participants were measured. Views, perceptions, attitudes, behaviors including thoughts and aspirations of indirect stakeholders were elicited in various contexts. Independent variables, such as socio-economic status, residence and community locations/type/nature were likewise accounted for to obtain a total picture of the learning process.. All these, Gonzalezrealized,“cannotbedonefromthecomfortsof one’sofficebasedontestresultsadministeredbyevaluatorsinthefield”(Ibid., p. 337). Conclusions and generalizations could be realized through classroom visitations, direct observations and classroom observations that would yield empirical data.

Given all the aforementioned considerations, the 1987 BEP and its implementing guidelines were deliberately formulated, promulgated and disseminated in series of various workshops and consultations at the national, regional and local levels. Prospectively, had the 1987 BEP received the proper management direction and power-steering, the goals set forth by both DECS Order Nos. 52 and 54 enumerated above for Filipino as language subject and MOI in all levels, would have been systematically attained.


Thus, it must be told, that, absent in the 1974 policy but clearly stipulated in the reformulated 1987 BEP, were the following: (1) clearly cited BEP goals for Filipino as a language of literacy, as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity and as a language of scholarly discourse; (2) the continuing intellectualization of Filipino in all levels; (3) assured government funding support for 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; (4) the full listing of 11 courses/subjects in all levels, including a 12th “Other appropriate subjects” catch-all category, for which Filipino would be the MOI; (5) English “as a non-exclusive language of science and technology”; and, (6) the creation of a Bilingual Education Committee tasked to monitor implementation, report and facilitate evaluative mechanisms over the next 10-year implementation period.

Given all of the above salient features of the 1987 BEP and its implementing guidelines, and even early on in the 1974 BEP, it can be said using a cliché, that all roads were to lead to the Filipinization of the educational system—an envisioned outcome consistent with the national development goals of the government and the National Board of Education Resolution No. 73-7. Purportedly, thiswould fulfill the aspirationof theFilipinonation “tohave itscitizens possess skills in 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” (Ibid., p. 166). Yet this nationalist vision was not meant to be.

Afterclosetofivedecadesnowfromthetimethebilingualpolicywasissued in 1974, up until the new MTB-MLE language policy has taken its place, the educational system continues to yield a “mis-education” for the Filipino youth. Like the problems that plagued the 1974 BEP as revealed by the Gonzalez and Sibayan evaluation studies, the 1987 BEP suffered the same impasse. Without mentioningthesystemicweaknessesof unfulfilledsupportmechanisms,suchashalf-hearted teacher trainings, ill-revised curriculum plans, ill-prepared teaching techniques and instructional materials, the Bilingual Education Committee was nowhere to be found, if at all it existed and functioned to undertake primarily the monitoring of the implementation plan. Neither were the tertiary institutions and other governmental agencies tasked to directly implement the development and intellectualization of Filipino worked hard core to achieve it.


Four years later the continuing sad plight of a deteriorating Philippine educationwouldbeconfirmedbyan11-monthstudyreportedbytheCongressionalCommission on Education to Review and Assess Philippine Education (or, EDCOM). It noted that similar problems prevailed since the Monroe Survey of 1925upuntiltheEDCOMsurveyin1991forover65years.Amongitsfindings,the bilingual policy was found as “distressing the quality of learning.” Expectedly, it recommended“flexibility in theuseof theBilingualPolicy in theelementarygrades” and instructed teachers to use the dominant language of the community (https://www.slideshare.net).

Relatedly, it is but fair to mention that only the University of the Philippines System (UPS) took the challenge of revolutionizing its language policy during this period from 1974 to date. Within a bilingual framework but foregrounding a true nationalistic education, UPS encouraged liberally the use of Filipino as MOI in teaching, research and extension work with accompanying awards and incentives, and institutionalized relevant Filipino programs and courses for minor or major offerings. Translation, too, was highly encouraged, especially for publication purposes. Meantime, English was to remain as an international language, used in English courses and in graduate programs, though not as an exclusive MOI. Regional languages were likewise taught, and used in research and creative writing (Bautista 1995).

And so it came to pass. The longest reigning Philippine language policy—the Bilingual Education Policy (1974-2008), obviously well-intentioned, well-crafted and conceptualized, was doomed from the start—out of neglect, indifference, discordant actions, and/or total weak and indecisive management of the whole educational system.

At the same time, the whole foregoing history of the failure of the BEP of 1974-2008 only serves to underscore the fact that the development Filipino as primary and ultimate MOI had suffered more from the said failures. The teaching and learning of English, on the other hand, had from the start been more equipped and accoutered within the educational system, both by reason that it is the foreign language being introduced and through the misplaced—and up to now, colonially-minded—bias for its importance, although its importance in the global arena is never denied. Consequently, the teaching and learning of Filipino, still aspirant of


a primary language status—and conscious of its indispensability in national unity and nation-building—inherited such a denigrating bias as a second-class citizen within the Filipino educational system.

It is such a second-class status for the National Language that Sen. Macapagal-Arroyo’s indefatigable efforts to re-legislate English as a primary, if not the sole Medium of Instruction, aim to perpetuate.

Purificacion G. Delima, PhDCommissioner for Ilocano


REFERENCES

Bautista, Ma. Lourdes. 1995. An outline: The national language and The language of instruction. In Bautista, Ma. Lourdes (ed.), 1996, Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics, Manila: DLSU Inc.

Angara, Edgardo and Padilla, Carlos. 1991. EDCOM Report. https://www.slideshare.net,ejuliosVillenes/edcom-report-by-rm- villenes-proj.-in-ed-m514. Downloaded on 3 July 2017.

Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1990. Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: Towards a multidimensional model of evaluation in Language planning. In Bautista (ed.), 1996.

______________________. 1990. Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In Bautista (ed.) 1996. _______________________ and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.). 1988. Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines (1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.


Appendices

Appendix A, p-1


Appendix A, p-2


Appendix A, p-3


Appendix B


Appendix C, p-1


Appendix C, p-2


Appendix C, p-3


Appendix C, p-4


Appendix C, p-5


Appendix C, p-6


Appendix C, p-7


Appendix C, p-8


Appendix C, p-9


Appendix C, p-10


Appendix C, p-11


Appendix C, p-12


Appendix C, p-13


Appendix C, p-14


Appendix C, p-15


Appendix C, p-16


Appendix D, p-1


Appendix D, p-2


Appendix D, p-3


Appendix E, p-1


Appendix E, p-2


Appendix E, p-3


Appendix E, p-4

filipino - kwf.gov.ph · filipino through programs that would effectively take it through the...

Documents