MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY
Manila, Philippines
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY (Ph.D)
First Semester 2013-2014

SEMINAR IN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIAL ISSUES
(SPSI)

A REPORT ON
“THE NAGGING LANGUAGE ISSUE”
(BILINGUAL APPROACH IN EDUCATION)

Submitted by:

ARVELLA M. ALBAY
Ph.D Psych Student

Submitted to:

DR. MARY ANN VILLENA
Professor

June 29, 2013

MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY
Manila, Philippines
School of Graduate Studies
Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (Ph.D)
First Semester 2013-2014
SEMINAR IN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIAL ISSUES
(SPSI)
Topic : THE NAGGING LANGUAGE ISSUE (Bilingual Approach in Education)
Reporter : ARVELLA MEDINA-ALBAY, Ph.D Psych
Professor : DR. MARY ANN VILLENA
INTRODUCTION

BILINGUAL EDUCATION involves teaching academic content in two languages, in a native and secondary language with varying amounts of each language used in accordance with the program model.

➢ “Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) in the Philippines is defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the media of instruction in specific subject areas.” As embodied in the DECS Order, Filipino shall be used as medium of instruction in social studies/social sciences, music, arts, physical education, home economics, practical arts and character education. English, on the other hand is allocated to science, mathematics, and technology subjects.

➢ From the above description, it is quite evident that there is confusion for some educators who defined BEP as the actual use of both languages (English and Filipino) inside the classroom. As stated above, BEP clearly states the scope and limitations of English and Filipino use.

History of Bilingual Education in the Philippines

➢ The language of instruction in the Philippines has been strongly influenced by its colonial past. Some effort was made during the Spanish era to teach in the vernacular, especially in the beginning, but the main language of instruction was Spanish. Because education was not universally accessible, however, Spanish did not spread to the general population and remained the language of the educated elite. ➢ With the arrival of the Americans, English became the language of instruction. ➢ English and Spanish remained the official languages of the Philippines until the 1973 Constitution declared both Pilipino (later renamed Filipino) and English the official languages of the country for communication and instruction. ➢ The Bilingual Education Policy, first implemented in 1974 under martial law, made Filipino the medium of instruction for • social studies or social sciences • music • arts • physical education • home economics • practical arts • character education

while English became the medium of instruction for • science • mathematics • technology subjects

➢ These same language–subject divisions were reaffirmed in the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education. ➢ In 1993, however, citing the decline of English literacy and the danger of the Philippines losing its competitive edge in the international labor market, then-president Macapagal-Arroyo directed the DepED to restore English as the primary medium of instruction in schools while still allowing the use of Filipino as the language of instruction for some subjects. ➢ Thus, English is used to teach English language, science and mathematics from at least Grade 3, while Filipino is the medium used for Filipino language and values education. ➢ Regional languages continue to be used as auxiliary mediums of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. Institutions of higher education are also encouraged to use English as the primary medium of instruction. ➢ The choice of English as the language of instruction has been debated over the years. As the country gained more independence, a movement developed to promote the “Filipinization” of education and to reject English as a national language. Some argue that one must first learn his or her mother tongue properly before learning a second language and that learning two languages concurrently leads to the mixing of the two in what is commonly referred to as “Taglish” in the Philippines. Teaching in a second language can also encourage “superficial learning,” that is, learning how to give correct answers on tests without having indepth understanding of concepts (Constantino, 2000, p. 428). ➢ The debate continues today; some even question the use of Filipino as a national language or as a language of instruction. The issue is proving difficult to resolve in a country with so much diversity in the languages and dialects proper to each region and island.

Summary of Milestones of Philippine Language policy-making Through the Development of the National Language

1937: TAGALOG ESTABLISHED AS THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE ➢ National Language Institute was established in 1937 through the Commonwealth Act No. 184, better known as ROMUALDEZ LAW. ➢ Tagalog became the basis of the national language for many possible reasons, including the fact that it was the language spoken by most of the national leaders including the President Manuel Quezon.

1959: TAGALOG RENAMED AS ‘PILIPINO’ ➢ Because of the choice of Tagalog as the national language, the politics of language took on an ethnolinguistic dimension ➢ Precisely, because of political sensitivity of Tagalog as the national language, it was renamed Pilipino in 1959 through the Memorandum from the DepEd.

1973: PILIPINO CEASED TO BE THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE ➢ Ethnolinguistic rivalries flared up again ➢ Sec.3.2 of Article XV of the 1973 Phil. Constitution stated that: The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino. ➢ As this national language was being developed, English and Pilipino would be the designated official languages of the country

1974: BILINGUAL EDUCATION ESTABLISHED AS POLITICAL COMPROMISE ➢ June 1974, the Bilingual Education in the Philippines (BEP) was institutionalized through Dept. Order No. 25 which mandated the use of English in the teaching of mathematics and science, and Pilipino in the teaching of all other subjects both in elementary and secondary schools (Pascasio, 1975). ➢ Dominance of English in the schools was seriously challenged by another language. ➢ English was the sole medium of instruction in school from the time it was introduced in 1901 until the promulgation of bilingual education in 1974. ➢ TWO KEY POINTS: Instrumental to the EMERGENCE of BILINGUAL EDUCATION: o 1. The question about the Sole dominance of English as a colonial language in Philippine schools. A vernacular language, in the form of a national language, would arguably have better chances the English of eliminating inequalities in Philippine education perpetuated by and through the sole use of English as medium of instruction. o 2. The question about Pilipino as the national language itself. Because of ethnolinguistic rivalries, Pilipino ceased to be the national language in the Philippine constitution but it resurfaced as a medium of instruction alongside English. The debate shifted to medium of instruction, but only after a politically ingenious compromise was struck between pro-English and pro-Pilipino groups.

1987: BILINGUAL EDUCATION REAFFIRMED; ‘FILIPINO’ EMERGED AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE ➢ Administration on Pres. Corazon Aquino, 1987 Constitution was re-written ➢ Section 6, Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution stipulated in definitive terms that “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino.” ➢ Followed by Dept. Order No. 52 which spelled further the political framework of the BEP. ➢ This time, Filipino, not Pilipino, was to be a medium of instruction alongside English, even if Tagalog, Pilipino, and Filipino were essentially the same in a linguistic sense (Nolasco,2010).

2009: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION, THE END OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION ➢ End of the Arroyo Administration; low educational achievement of Filipino students as revealed by various international and national achievement tests. ➢ Institutionalized the multilingual education, end of the bilingual education ➢ To use mother tongues as medium of instruction in elementary and high school in the light of local and international research results which showed that mother tongues are more effective than non-local languages (including Filipino in most communities in the Philippines) in facilitating learning.

Legal Bases of Bilingual Education

The Language provision in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines which are embodied in Article XIV, Sec. 6 and 7 provide the legal basis for the various language policies that are being implemented in the country. The ratification of the above-mentioned constitution resolved the issue on what the national language is, since the 1935 and 1973 Philippine Charters were not clear about this.
The provision are as follows:
1. Section 6. 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.
2. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.
The Philippine Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) Consistent with the 1987 constitutional mandate and a declared policy of the National Board of Education (NBE) on bilingualism in the schools (NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s.1973) the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) promulgated its language policy. The policy was first implemented in 1974 when DECS issued Dept. Order No. 25, s. 1974 titled, "Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education." Bilingual education in the Philippines is defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the media of instruction in specific subject areas. As embodied in the DECS Order No. 25, Pilipino (changed to Filipino in 1987) shall be used as medium of instruction in social studies/social sciences, music, arts, physical education, home economics, practical arts and character education. English, on the other hand is allocated to science, mathematics and technology subjects. The same subject allocation is provided in the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education which is disseminated through Department Order No. 52, s. 1987.
The policy is as follows:
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 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.
The goals of the Bilingual Education Policy shall be:
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 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 of their functions in Philippine schooling 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. Guidelines for the implementation of the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education are specified in the DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987. Among these are the need to intellectualize Filipino and the concrete steps suggested towards its realization.

Executive Order No. 335 On August 25, 1988, then President Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order No. 335 enjoining all departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government to take such steps as are necessary for the purpose of using the Filipino language in official transactions, communications, and correspondence. The order was issued on the belief that the use of Filipino in official transactions, communications and correspondence in government offices will result to a greater understanding and appreciation of government programs, projects and activities throughout the country, thereby serving as an instrument of unity and peace for national progress. All departments/bureaus/offices/agencies/instrumentalities of the government are enjoined to do the following:
1. Take steps to enhance the use of Filipino in official communications, transactions and correspondence in their respective offices, whether national or local;
2. Assign one or more personnel, as maybe necessary, in every office to take charge of communications and correspondence written in Filipino;
3. Translate into Filipino names of offices, buildings, public edifices, and signboards of all offices, divisions or its instrumentalities, and if so desired, imprint below in smaller letters the English text; Filipinize the "Oath of Office" for government officials and personnel; Make as part of the training programs for personnel development in each office the proficiency in the use of Filipino in official communications and correspondence. The Commission on the Filipino Language, formerly Institute of Philippine/National Language, is ordered to formulate and implement programs and projects for the full and effective implementation of the objectives expressed in the Executive Order.
The Language Policy of the Commission on Higher Education In 1994, Republic Act No. 7722, creating the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was signed. This Act which is know as the "Higher Education Act of 1994" provides that the CHED shall be independent and separate from the DECS and attached to the Office of the President for administrative purposes only. Its coverage shall be both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions, public and private. One of the first steps undertaken by CHED was to update the General Education Curriculum (GEC) of tertiary courses leading to an initial bachelor's degree covering four (4) curriculum years. This was done to make the curriculum more responsive to the demands of the next millenium. The requirements of the new GEC are embodied in the CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 59, s. 1996. Listed under miscellaneous of this CMO is its language policy which is as follows: 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.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINE SOCIETY

➢ Bilingual education in the country undoubtedly ruptured the dominance of English in Philippine education.

➢ It has not really displaced English as the symbol of power and prestige (Tupas, 2008), it also opened up resistance to neocolonial dominance in Philippine education through the use of a local language as a language of learning

➢ Bilingual education would constitute part of what may be called “a pedagogy of liberation” (Alexander,2009).

➢ The national language contributed to what many scholars have called the ‘indigenization of knowledge construction in the country. The indigenous national language has served as a vehicle for the recuperation of local knowledge and ways of thinking and doing which been marginalized by Western-based research theories and methodologies

➢ Pantayong Pananaw has emerged in the social sciences, roughly a perspective of history and society that takes on a ‘from-us-for-us’ point of view where research and other forms of intellectual scrutiny centered on problems and solutions that are relevant to the lives of Filipinos.

➢ Tagalog-based Filipino through bilingual education increasingly became widespread across the archipelago, and took root in the lives of many Filipinos especially through media and popular culture.

Issues and Concerns of Bilingual Education

1. Level of language awareness and information in the regions ➢ there is widespread misinformation and misunderstanding of the bilingual education policy. ➢ After more than 20 years of implementation of the bilingual education policy, it seems that many, especially school administrators, still do not fully comprehend the spirit of the bilingual education policy. ➢ Some schools half-heartedly implement such policy. Many fear that such policy is aimed at the total replacement of English by Filipino. Such fear results in the negative attitude toward Filipino in the cities of Cebu and Bacolod. In these places, those who attended the consultation denounced what they called "imperialist Manila" for ramming down their throats policies that hurt their native pride. However, such negative attitude toward Filipino was encountered only in these two cities, not in Davao, Tuguegarao, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga. It should be noted that Cebu and Bacolod are old rich cities, whereas the others are "melting pots," where residents are settlers from various parts of the country, speaking various major and minor languages.
2. Attitudes and opinions regarding the national language and their native tongues ➢ Davao, Tuguegarao, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga have a positive attitude toward Filipino, which serves as lingua franca among residents who speak different native tongues. ➢ Cebu and Bacolod, on the other hand, may have exhibited a negative attitude toward Filipino, but it should be made clear that they do not want English or their native languages as the national language; they just do not want to equate language with nationalism.
3. Problems encountered in the implementation of language policies ➢ Foremost is the lack of accurate information regarding the language policies. On the use of Filipino in government communications, participants in the consultations admitted their lack of competence in the use of written Filipino, lack of references and manuals in writing in Filipino. As medium of instruction, the teachers admitted that they still needed some more training in writing in Filipino and in pronouncing words. They also complained that school administrators still refused to fully implement the bilingual education policy.
4. Listing of words in regional languages to enrich Filipino ➢ The consultations tried to make the participants aware that the regional languages can further enrich Filipino. They were asked to list down words naming their flora and fauna, customs, etc. for which there are no Tagalog/Filipino equivalents. A good example is bugi (fish roe).
Other Issues: 1. Bilingual Education policy, which made Filipino the medium of instruction for all subjects except science, math, and English, effectively made it more difficult for the average student to attain English fluency, whereas the wealthy turned to other resources (private school, tutoring, cable TV) to compensate. 2. Hindered the lower and middle classes in breaking into higher education and higher-paying jobs, which continue to demand good English skills. 3. Bilingual Education has presided over decades of unsatisfactory learning producing millions of graduates with low English, Filipino, and native language proficiency.
Answers to the following:
Is the national language acceptable in the regions – Except for the cities of Cebu and Bacolod, the answer is yes.
Are the following implemented – bilingual education policy and EO 335 – for the bilingual education policy, yes, except in Cebu because of a restraining order; there are many problems in the implementation of EO 335, like lack of references and manuals, lack of competence, etc.
If not implemented, for what reasons – lack of incentives, lack of vocabulary, lack of information
Any possible solutions – suggested solutions:

1. holding seminar-workshops on the use of Filipino as medium of instruction and as medium of official communication; a system of monitoring and follow-up; original writing and translation of important documents from English to Filipino;

2. research on indigenous names of things so as to preserve their local names for the next generation to maintain awareness of their native cultures;

3. a dictionary with accompanying pronunciation that will help those from the regions to pronounce words correctly; and

4. massive information campaign to instill language awareness and inculcate pride in the regional languages and in Filipino.

5. Improvement of the bilingual education policy, the use of Mother Tongue as the primary medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3 (K-12 curriculum) but it can be enhanced by extending the use of MT for several more years in accordance with the vast majority of research on education in multilingual setting.

6. Provide English as the main medium of instruction for the secondary level and tertiary level