𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝟏 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐱𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞

 RA 12027 refers to the regional languages as auxiliary mediums of instruction (MOI). Some define "auxiliary" in terms of the amount or percentage of time these languages are used, possibly in local media and public documents. As a teacher, I adhere to the definition of auxiliary language provided by RA 7104 Section 3: 

"𝘼𝙪𝙭𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 - 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙠𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙/𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨"

This definition highlights that some learners may need more support from their first language (L1), while others may need less. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify its usage. Instead, the key question should be: how can we use the children's L1 to help them eventually learn entirely through Filipino or English? My point is that the definition of "auxiliary language" must be viewed from a teaching and learning perspective. 

For the proponents of MTB-MLE, the best interpretation of L1 as an auxiliary language is rooted in Cummins' theory, which states that when young children are immersed in their L1, they transfer literacy and language skills to their L2 as they progress in higher grades. Unfortunately, it seems our lawmakers either disregard or fail to consider this research-backed framework.  

The other framework on the use of L1 as complementary language comes from contrastive linguistics experts who work with dual language or sheltered instruction programs, such as Margo Gottlieb, Jana Echevarria, and translanguaging scholars like Ofelia Garcia and her colleagues from CUNY. In Thailand, Dr. Sangsok Son leads a translanguaging lab, advocating for a hybrid model where L1 is used from kindergarten to Grade 3 and continues as a support language from Grade 3 onward. 

And so given the restricted use of L1 as an auxiliary language, the IRR for RA 12027 should include the following provisions: 

𝟭. 𝗔 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝟭 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘅𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲. 

𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀, 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀. 

𝟯. 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 

Without a clear definition and framework for using L1 as an auxiliary language, teachers may default to "back translation." This happens when a teacher uses English as the MOI, and if students do not understand, the teacher translates into the local language. This unplanned and spontaneous use of L1 can be harmful, as students may simply wait for the translation. Planned use of L1 includes some strategies for the receptive and productive use of languages like using L1 to clarify background information of a particular lesson, preview-view-review, etc. 

In addition, as students learn Filipino as L2, both their L1 and Filipino can be used as complementary languages to support the learning of additional foreign languages. 

The IRR writers should seriously consider previous research, such as the Monroe report, which shows that a strict English-only policy is detrimental. It often leads to underachievement and hinders productive discourse, as students struggle to ask questions or engage in discussions in English. Unless, of course, lawmakers prefer classrooms to remain quiet and devoid of meaningful and critical exchanges. 

In a linguistically diverse and developing country like the Philippines, it is crucial to conduct more studies that explore how L1 can be maximized as a complementary language in various language contexts. These studies should focus on understanding the role of L1 in supporting not only the acquisition of national and official languages but also in enhancing multilingualism and overall learning outcomes. 

An Omnibus Petition Against the Removal of the Mother Tongue Subject and Eradication of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)

Sign our petition here - https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-against-the-suspension-of-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mtb-mle.html 

We strongly oppose the removal of the Mother Tongue subject and 19th Congress’ move to eradicate Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual  Education (MTB-MLE) for these reasons:

1. Constitutional Mandate: The 1987 Philippine Constitution allows the use of regional languages in schools, along with English and Filipino. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2018, which ruled that using the Mother Tongue as a primary medium of instruction aligns with constitutional provisions.

2. International Obligations: The Philippines is a signatory to international agreements that protect the rights of children, or persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples. The Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989) provides that the  education of the child shall be directed to the development of the child’s cultural identity and language, and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People affirms the right of IPs to establish and control their  educational systems and institutions providing education in their languages. This provision was adopted from our own IP Rights Act of 1997. It must be noted that the right to learn in your own language is a basic human right that existed even before governments and constitutions. It is important for preserving cultures and identities. No one should take this right away from you, and doing so is an actionable wrong that demands remedy.

3. Quality and Inclusive Learning: In a letter sent to the Senate in 2023, UNICEF cited the Philippines as a model in Asia for MTB-MLE. UNICEF wrote that upholding the child’s first language is a pillar for quality and inclusive learning. Studies show that children not only perform better but are also more engaged and joyful when the mother tongue is used in classes. The MTB-MLE program enabled teachers and other community partners to contextualize learning by creating numerous storybooks and other materials.

4. No Evidence for Alternatives: There is no credible evidence that limiting instruction to English and Filipino will improve educational outcomes. Experts like the World Bank support MTB-MLE in improving education systems. Discontinuing the program without a viable alternative would be harmful. While the Philippine Institute for Development Studies identified challenges in implementing MTB-MLE, it did not question the program’s value but recommended improving its execution.

Instead of discontinuing, we ask our policymakers to support a strong MTB-MLE program. 

The EDCOM 2 Year 1 report identifies several systemic issues in our education system, such as inadequate infrastructure and trained teachers and an overambitious curriculum. These challenges, compounded by the effects of prolonged school closures and informal mass promotion practices, have led to declining educational outcomes. MTB-MLE was designed to address some of these issues; however EDCOM 2 found that its success has been limited by a top-down approach and a mismatch between language instruction and language of assessment. Moreover,  education authorities substantially weakened the program’s effectiveness by illegally adhering to a “short exit” policy instead of a “no exit” one.

We urge the Department of  Education to build on its gains and the principles of inclusive and rights-based education by doing the following:

1. Ensure that children who speak languages other than the medium of instruction receive appropriate language support in their mother tongue.

2. Retain the Mother Tongue as a language and literacy subject from Kindergarten to Grade 3 and even extend its use. Carefully crafted, it is in the L1 subject where learners are explicitly and systematically taught how to read, write, speak, think, understand and create texts.

3. Develop an integrated language program that ensures students become multilingual and multiliterate in their mother tongue, Filipino, and English, as they progress in higher grades.

We oppose the removal of the L1 subject and the eradication of the MTB-MLE program. Though it has many implementation challenges, with adequate investment and effective planning, it can significantly improve education in the Philippines. As human rights advocates, we are committed to supporting this initiative when it is carried out correctly, ensuring that all Filipino children receive the quality education they deserve.

If you support this petition, please write your name, location and message in the comments section below or sign the petition here - https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-against-the-suspension-of-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mtb-mle.html 

Short Filipino translation:

Mariin naming tinutulan ang lubos na pagpapatanggal ng Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) sa sumusunod na mga dahilan:

1. Mandato ng Saligang Batas

2. Internasiyonal na Pananagutan

3. Kalidad at Inklusibong Pagkatuto 

4. Walang Katibayan para sa Alternatibong Moda

Hinihimok namin ang Kagawaran ng Edukasiyon na isulong ang prinsipyong pang-edukasiyon na inklusibo at nakabatay sa mga karapatan sa pamamagitan ng sumusunod: 

1. Tiyakin ang mag-aaral na makamagit ng angkop na paggabay sa kanilang sariling wika maliban sa midyum ng pagtuturo na kanilang natatanggap. 

2. Panatilihin ang Mother Tongue bilang asignaturang pangwika at literasi mula Kindergarten hanggang Grade 3 at palawigin ang paggamit nito. Mahusay na pagkabuo sa L1 para sa mag-aaral na sistematiko ang pagtuturo sa pagbabasa, pagsusulat, pagsasalita, pag-iisip, pag-unawa, at paglikha ng teksto. 

3. Bumuo ng integradong programang pangwika na tiyak na magiging multilingguwal na mag-aaral sa kanilang unang wika, Filipino, at Ingles, habang tumataas ang kanilang antas. 

Para lumagda sa petisyon, isulat ang inyong panglan, lugar at mensahe sa komento sa ibaba. 

Mangyaring magpadala sa amin ng email, kung sakaling hindi makalagda sa petisyon o maari ring magpadala ng pribadong mensahe sa mlephilippines@gmail.com

Lumagda at magpalagda, ipasa pagkabasa!

 https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-against-the-suspension-of-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mtb-mle.html  

Right to learn in one's first language

 Karbengan ti maysa nga ubing a maisuro ken makasursuro iti lengwahe nga matarusana

It's the right of a child to learn and be taught in a language he/she understands 

Raising the Philippine score in international learning assessments

 President Bongbong Marcos was expected to announce the new DepEd Secretary last week but postponed the decision, emphasizing we need someone capable of raising the Philippines' scores in international assessments. This is indeed a very tall order for the incoming Secretary, given that since the 1990s, when the country began participating in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), we have consistently ranked near the bottom. However, with a well-crafted strategy and comprehensive approach, the aspiration can be doable. It is crucial that this responsibility is not relegated to a small bureau like the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), but instead becomes a concerted national effort.

A strategic starting point would be to focus on the Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM), which provides assessments that are more contextualized for our region. Test providers have identified that the language of testing significantly impacts student performance, and as a result, they are planning to trial the use of local languages in upcoming SEA-PLM assessments. 

Learn from China and Canada. China strategically selected major cities to participate in PISA while excluding rural areas. Similarly, it was reported in 2015 that Canada sampled only about half of its 15-year-old population for PISA, excluding areas with highly disadvantaged populations. It's important to note that PISA guidelines allow for the exclusion of students who are not native speakers of the testing language. In the Philippines, schools in Makati City and certain areas in the Cordillera region have demonstrated high performance, suggesting that a targeted approach in choosing test locations could lead to better results. 

Learn from Vietnam, too. In PISA 2018, Vietnamese students were among the top 10, and they used a paper-and-pencil format despite PISA being primarily computer-based. This highlights the significance of accommodating different test modalities. Filipino school principals have reported that students required practice sessions to become familiar with computer-based testing, indicating that the modality can significantly impact outcomes. 

The language of testing is another critical factor in student success. In Malaysia, students took the PISA test in both Malay and English, with elite private school students opting for English, while others used Malay. Spain used Basque, Catalan, Galician, Spanish, at Valencian languages.  It’s really time to seriously consider using other languages for testing. If we continue to use English for assessments, it is crucial to offer accommodations such as using the more conversational or Philippine English version with and parenthetical Tagalog explanations for complex terms (legitimate accommodation). This approach aligns with the practice of our teachers who use English terminology but explain concepts in local languages to ensure better understanding.

Finally, we can learn from countries like India and Austria, along with over 100 others (like Egypt, Ecuador, Kuwait, Venezuela, etc.) that choose not to participate in PISA. If we are really serious in improving education outcomes, we can improve our Early Language, Literacy, and Numeracy Assessment (ELNA) and the National Achievement Test (NAT) so that they can provide more valid and reliable data to inform policy and practice. Education isn't a beauty contest where we aim to flaunt the most impressive scores; it's about fostering relevant education (therefore we should not align our curriculum to PISA) and equitable opportunities for all learners.