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.
