FAQ - On the Petition Against Republic Act No. 12027

 

1. What is Republic Act No. 12027?

RA 12027 is a law that discontinues the mandatory use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction and as a subject from Kindergarten to Grade 3. It reverts the medium of instruction to Filipino and English, effectively dismantling the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program mandated by RA 10533 (K to 12 Law).

---

2. What is this petition asking the Supreme Court to do?

The petition asks the Supreme Court to:

• Declare RA 12027 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional;

• Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to stop its implementation;

• Protect the constitutional and human rights of learners, teachers, parents, and minority communities affected by this law.

---

3. Who are the petitioners?

The petitioners include:

• Children from linguistic and Deaf communities;

• Parents, especially from Indigenous Peoples (IP) groups;

• Teachers, linguists, writers, and scholars;

• National leaders of the Filipino Deaf community;

• Cultural advocates and community educators.

They come from various regions across the Philippines, representing diverse languages and identities.

---

4. Why is RA 12027 considered unconstitutional?

It violates several provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including:

• Article III, Section 1 – right to due process and equal protection;

• Article III, Section 4 – freedom of expression;

• Article XIV, Section 7 – the right to education in regional languages as auxiliary media of instruction;
  It also contradicts the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Cotescup v. Secretary of Education, which upheld MTB-MLE as constitutional.

---

5. What’s wrong with using Filipino and English in schools?

There’s nothing wrong with learning Filipino and English. But forcing children to learn in unfamiliar languages too early, without scaffolding from their first language (L1), leads to:

• Poor comprehension,

• Low academic performance,

• High dropout rates,

• Cultural alienation, especially for non-Tagalog and Indigenous learners.

---

6. How does RA 12027 affect Indigenous learners and the Deaf community?

RA 12027:

• Marginalizes IP learners by removing their language from the classroom;

• Excludes Filipino Sign Language (FSL) despite being recognized by RA 11106 as the national and official sign language;

• Violates international human rights conventions such as the CRC, ICESCR, and CRPD, to which the Philippines is a signatory.

---

7. Isn’t MTB-MLE already failing? Why keep it?

The MTB-MLE program faced implementation gaps, but the solution is better implementation—not abolition.
DepEd’s own data and global research show that when learners are taught in a language they understand, learning outcomes improve significantly. They show that even with spotty implementation, learners reached the nearly proficient level, the same level as their scores jn Filipino and English.  See DepEd's ELLNA results for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. RA 12027 ignores this evidence.

---

8. Why should we care about this issue?

Language is tied to learning, identity, equity, and justice. This issue:

• Affects millions of Filipino children, especially from rural, Indigenous, and marginalized communities;

• Determines the quality and accessibility of education;

• Impacts how future generations understand their culture and participate in society.

---

9. What can we do to help?

• Stay informed and share verified information;

• Speak out on social media using your regional language or sign language;

• Join advocacy groups defending linguistic rights and inclusive education;

• Write to your legislators or the DepEd to express concern;

• Encourage schools, LGUs, and communities to uphold MTB-MLE in practice.
  
  
  Here is the link to the full text of the petition for MTB-MLE submitted to the Supreme Court last June 30, 2025
  
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jt10we-neAqffeLUJv-Uq60lv2Ah35XZ/view?usp=sharing 

PETITION TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Petition was submitted to the Supreme Court today, June 30, 2025. 

The petitioners come from the Deaf community, pupils (represented by their parents or guardians), teachers, the Indigenous Cultural Community, linguists, and other academics.  

English Version 

SUMMARY OF THE PETITION TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

This Petition asks the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act No. 12027 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional. Petitioners argue that the law violates multiple provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including the right to due process and equal protection (Art. III, Sec. 1), freedom of expression (Art. III, Sec. 4), and the right to be educated in one’s mother tongue (Art. XIV, Sec. 7). It also violates jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court ruling in Cotescup v. Secretary of Education, which upheld the use of the mother tongue as a primary medium of instruction.

RA 12027 removes the requirement to use the learner’s first language (L1) as a subject and medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3. This demotes the child’s home language to a marginal role, contradicting laws and evidence that affirm its importance in ensuring quality, inclusive, and equitable education.

“To remove the learner’s L1 as a subject is not a neutral act—it is a form of cultural erasure.”

Main Points:

1. It discriminates against the majority of Filipino learners. Over 60% of children in Grades K to 3 speak neither Tagalog nor English at home. The law forces them to learn in unfamiliar languages, undermining comprehension and deep learning.

2. It silences teachers and undermines inclusive school leadership. Section 4 imposes vague administrative sanctions on the use of the mother tongue, discouraging its use even where it is most effective—especially for Indigenous learners and Deaf students who use Filipino Sign Language (FSL).

3. It contradicts decades of educational research and Philippine experience. International studies and DepEd’s own assessments show that children learn best when instruction begins in the language they know best.

4. It violates both national laws (such as RA 10533, RA 11106, RA 8371) and international commitments (CRC, CRPD, ICESCR, CADE) which uphold the rights of linguistic minorities, including Indigenous Peoples and the Deaf, to accessible, meaningful education in their own languages.

5. It imposes an unfair burden on local languages. The law allows L1-based instruction only under narrow conditions such as encyclopedias approved and published only by KWF and teachers who are trained and language proficient, requirements not imposed on Filipino or English.

What Petitioners Request:

Petitioners respectfully ask the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to halt the implementation of RA 12027, which took effect in June 2025. Without intervention, millions of children—especially those from non-Tagalog backgrounds and the Deaf community—will be denied their right to learn in the language of their birth, home, and identity.

This petition stands for every learner’s right to quality education rooted in their own language, culture, and dignity.

...............................................................................

Filipino Version

BUOD NG PETISYON PARA IDEKLARANG LABAG SA KONSTITUSYON ANG REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027

Ang petisyong ito ay inihain sa Korte Suprema upang ideklarang labag sa Konstitusyon ang Republic Act No. 12027 at ang Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) nito. Iginiit ng mga petisyoner—na kinabibilangan ng mga bata, magulang, guro, lider ng katutubo, mga lingguwista, at kinatawan ng komunidad ng Bingi—na nilalabag ng batas na ito ang mga pangunahing karapatan sa 1987 Konstitusyon, kabilang ang karapatan sa due process at pantay-pantay na pagtingin sa batas (Art. III, Sec. 1), kalayaan sa pagpapahayag (Art. III, Sec. 4), at ang karapatang matuto gamit ang sariling wika (Art. XIV, Sec. 7). Nilalabag din nito ang desisyong Cotescup v. Secretary of Education ng Korte Suprema, na kinilala ang legalidad ng paggamit ng unang wika bilang pangunahing midyum ng pagtuturo.

Tinatanggal ng RA 12027 ang rekisitong gamitin ang mother tongue bilang asignatura at pangunahing midyum ng pagtuturo mula Kindergarten hanggang Grade 3. Sa halip na palakasin, pinapababa nito ang halaga ng wikang ginagamit sa tahanan ng bata, at ginagawang opsyonal—sa kabila ng matibay na ebidensiyang ang paggamit ng unang wika ay nagpapabuti sa pagkatuto, pagkakapantay-pantay, at inklusyon.

“Ang pagtanggal sa unang wika ng bata bilang asignatura ay hindi inosenteng hakbang—ito ay isang anyo ng pagbura sa kultura.”

Pangunahing Punto:

1.      Mapanira at mapanlinlang sa nakararaming batang Pilipino. Mahigit 60% ng mga mag-aaral sa K hanggang Grade 3 ay hindi nagsasalita ng Tagalog o Ingles sa bahay. Pinipilit silang matuto gamit ang wikang banyaga sa kanila, na humahadlang sa kanilang pag-unawa at partisipasyon.

2.      Pinatatahimik ang mga guro at pinahihina ang pamumunong pang-edukasyon sa lokal. Ang Seksyon 4 ay nagpapataw ng di-malinaw at nakakatakot na parusa sa mga gurong gumagamit ng mother tongue, lalo na sa mga nagtuturo sa mga katutubo at sa mga batang Bingi na gumagamit ng Filipino Sign Language (FSL).

3.      Taliwas sa pananaliksik at pinakamahusay na praktika. Ipinapakita ng mga pag-aaral mula sa World Bank, UNESCO, at maging ng DepEd mismo, na mas epektibo ang pagkatuto kung sisimulan sa wikang nauunawaan ng bata.

4.      Nilalabag ang umiiral na batas at internasyonal na kasunduan. Sinasalungat ng RA 12027 ang mga naunang reporma gaya ng K to 12 Law (RA 10533), Filipino Sign Language Act (RA 11106), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371), at iba pang batas na nagtataguyod ng inklusibong edukasyon. Nilalabag din nito ang mga pandaigdigang kasunduan gaya ng CRC, ICESCR, CRPD, at CADE.

5.      Nagpapataw ng imposibleng pasanin sa mga lokal na wika. Bagamat sinasabing maaaring gamitin ang MTB-MLE sa mga "monolinggwal na klase," naglalagay ito ng mahigpit at makitid na mga kundisyon tulad ng mga encyclopedia na inaprubahan at inilathala lamang ng KWF at mga gurong may sapat na kasanayan at bihasa sa wika, mga rekisitong hindi hinihingi sa paggamit ng Ingles o Filipino.

Hiling ng mga Petisyoner:

Hinihiling ng mga petisyoner sa Korte Suprema na maglabas ng Temporary Restraining Order o Writ of Preliminary Injunction upang pansamantalang ipatigil ang implementasyon ng RA 12027, na nagsimula noong Hunyo 2025. Kung walang agarang aksyon, milyon-milyong bata—lalo na mula sa mga hindi-Tagalog at komunidad ng Bingi—ang mawawalan ng patas, inklusibo, at dekalidad na edukasyon sa wikang kanilang alam at ginagamit.

Ang petisyong ito ay hindi lamang pagtatanggol sa kasalukuyang henerasyon, kundi sa lahat ng susunod pang henerasyon ng mga batang Pilipino. Paninindigan ito para sa karapatan ng bawat bata na matuto, magpahayag, at umunlad sa wika ng kanyang tahanan, puso, at pagkatao.

Here is the link to the full text of the petition for MTB-MLE submitted to the Supreme Court last June 30, 2025

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jt10we-neAqffeLUJv-Uq60lv2Ah35XZ/view?usp=sharing .

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.

In anticipation of PISA 2021 results announcement in December

 The latest PISA 2021 results will be released anytime soon. After being apprised of the initial results, education officials have preemptively tempered expectations, announcing that DepEd “is not expecting high scores.” Like the previous PISA 2018 results, the Philippines will most likely remain at the bottom. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is held every three years and intends to assess 15-year-old school pupils' performance in mathematics, science, and reading. We also join similar international studies like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM). The results are pretty much the same. Notably, the SEA-PLM results formed the basis for asserting that 91% of Filipino children are grappling with learning poverty, a condition when one cannot read a simple text by the age of 10. Curiously, these assessments, including PISA, were conducted in English, even though English is the home language of only 6% of the Filipino test takers. The choice of English as the medium of testing is reminiscent of the 1925 educational survey by the Paul Monroe Commission. The study found that the reading ability of high school graduates was equivalent to that of a 5th grader in the US. Take note that the American Thomasite teachers were still here, and English was the only language used in school. The Monroe Commission reported that the restrictive English-only policy was the main culprit for academic underperformance due to a lack of productive discussion in the classroom.

A critical question arises. What precisely are our educational planners aiming to measure? Is it proficiency in math, science, reading, or English? If the goal is to produce English-speaking graduates for global employment, language proficiency tests like the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) or the locally administered Department of Education’s Teacher English Proficiency Test (TEPT) would be more fitting. By the way, the TEPT results reveal that only 2% of our teachers are proficient in English, and the rest are either low (45.95%) or nearly proficient (51.09%). Given that the TEPT results have been unchanging for the past 12 years, expecting teachers to prepare students to meet PISA standards in English seems unrealistic. The PISA standards expect students to be able “to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific inquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically,…apply scientific knowledge in the context of real-life situations.”   

If we are indeed serious about developing science, math, and reading skills, then the government should invest more in education (among the PISA 2018 participating countries, Philippines has the lowest spending per learner). Decentralized intervention is also recommended. Each region should have a strategy with defined goals and milestones based on its performance and resources. The regional strategy must define what pedagogy, languages, materials, and testing modalities to use based on its context. Recent studies show that what works well with multilingual children is multilingual and multimodal pedagogy and assessments.

If we persist in participating in international tests, there are models to consider. Vietnam, a low-income developing nation, ranked fourth in science and 13th in reading, surpassing wealthier OECD countries. Vietnamese students took a paper-and-pencil test with questions contextualized in Vietnamese. It must be noted that in the 1970s, Vietnam decided to let go of French and used the Vietnamese language in all subject areas across all educational levels (with a provision for the mother tongue for ethnic minority groups). China was another topnotcher but they selected participants from four wealthy cities only. Multicultural countries like Malaysia chose Chinese, Malay, and Tamil (for SEA-PLM). 

Most likely, when the new PISA results come in, we will go through another cycle of self-flagellation. At some point, I was resigned to the thought that we had the worst system, but I found it incredible that 91% of our 4th-grade pupils could not read a simple text. True enough, the basis was an English reading test. Despite decades of bad news, we should remain hopeful that things can change, but we should find the appropriate way to measure what our children really know. In the first place, PISA was meant for wealthy OECD countries, and only less than 40% of the countries participated. India abstained from joining PISA for the past 12 years because they felt that it was not culturally appropriate. And yet India has been instituting massive educational reforms through its New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, shifting the focus from rote learning to holistic, relevant, and problem-solving education. I hope that our policymakers, through the EDCOM 2, will do no less. 

Note:

This is the letter I sent to Inquirer.Net. Due to space limitation, they removed some parts. You can read the published form here - https://opinion.inquirer.net/168641/anticipating-pisa-results-on-dec-4-will-self-flagellation-follow 

Conference Workshop on the International Decade of Indigenous Languages and the SDGs

 Join us in 𝑰𝒍𝒐𝒊𝒍𝒐 𝑪𝒊𝒕𝒚 (𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒑𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔) on 𝑭𝒆𝒃𝒓𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒚 21-23, 2023

𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲-𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽 𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗗𝗚 as a presenter and/or participant (organized/sponsored by 𝗨𝗣-𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗮𝘀, 𝗧𝗲𝗯𝘁𝗲𝗯𝗯𝗮, 𝗔𝗕𝗖+, 𝗨𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗖𝗢-𝗝𝗮𝗸𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗮 & 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘁𝗮𝘆𝗮𝗻-𝗠𝗟𝗘)

Theme: Carrying out the Global Action Plan and the 2030 Agenda

Plenary speakers:

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗙𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀

UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues at United Nations

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗚𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗢. 𝗚𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗴, 𝗣𝗵𝗗

Department of Education Curriculum and Instruction Division

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗼, 𝗣𝗵𝗗

University Fellow, De La Salle University Manila

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝗣𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿, 𝗣𝗵𝗗

President, National Research Council of the Philippines

𝗩𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝘂𝗹𝗶 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝘂𝘇

Executive Director, Tebtebba Foundation

Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘆

President, Nagkakaisang mga Tribu ng Palawan Inc.

𝗥𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱𝗼 𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗻

Chairperson, UPAKAT Chairperson and Timuey of Erumanen ne Menuvu

𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗢𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘇

Silingang Dapit sa Sidlakang Mindanao (SILDAP)

𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗶 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗼𝘀

Policy Advocacy Manager, Philippine Business for Education

For more details, visit the Conference Facebook page

What Chat.GPT says about MLE (advantages, approaches, and hurdles)

 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗚𝗣𝗧 is trending these days. It can be accessed through https://chat.openai.com/. It is “an AI-powered chatbot developed by OpenAI, based on the GPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer) language model. It can respond to queries in a human-like text based response. It draws from a big data of reports and literature that were generated in 2021 and earlier. I asked the application several questions related to L1-based multilingual education and the responses are impressive. 

𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Why should the teacher use the L1 or mother tongue of the child as the language of instruction?

There are several reasons why a teacher might choose to use the L1 or mother tongue of a child as the language of instruction:

Improved comprehension: When children are taught in their L1, they are more likely to understand what is being taught, as they are already familiar with the language and its structures. This can lead to greater engagement in the classroom and better learning outcomes.

Enhanced cognitive development: Research has shown that using a child's L1 in the classroom can help them develop their cognitive abilities, including problem-solving, critical thinking, and creative thinking.

Increased self-esteem and motivation: Children who are able to use their L1 in the classroom may feel more confident and motivated to learn. They are more likely to feel valued and respected as individuals, and this can have a positive impact on their overall well-being.

Facilitation of transition to second language: Using the L1 as the language of instruction can help children make a smoother transition to learning a second language. Children who have a solid foundation in their L1 are often better equipped to pick up a second language later on.

It's important to note that while using the L1 as the language of instruction can be beneficial, it may not be appropriate in all contexts. For example, in multilingual classrooms where children speak different L1s, a common language may be used instead. In such cases, the teacher should strive to make sure that all students feel included and valued, regardless of their linguistic background.

𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: How can the teacher ensure that all students in a multilingual classroom feel included and valued, regardless of their linguistic background?

There are several strategies that a teacher can use to ensure that all students in a multilingual classroom feel included and valued, regardless of their linguistic background:

Create a supportive and inclusive classroom environment: Teachers can foster a sense of community in the classroom by encouraging all students to participate in class discussions and activities, and by valuing the contributions of all students.

Use visual aids and gestures: In a multilingual classroom, visual aids, such as images, diagrams, and gestures, can help to support understanding and overcome language barriers.

Encourage use of students' home languages: Teachers can allow students to use their home languages in class, and can encourage students to share their cultural backgrounds with their classmates. This can help students feel valued and respected for their linguistic and cultural heritage.

Provide opportunities for individual and small group work: Teachers can provide opportunities for students to work individually or in small groups on tasks that are relevant to their interests and needs. This can help students feel more confident and engaged in the learning process.

Provide additional support: Teachers can provide additional support to students who may need help with language and academic skills, such as through tutoring, peer-assisted learning, or after-school programs.

Celebrate diversity: Teachers can celebrate the diversity of the students in their class by incorporating activities that highlight different cultural celebrations, languages, and traditions.

By incorporating these strategies, a teacher can help create a supportive and inclusive environment in which all students feel valued and respected, regardless of their linguistic background.

𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: What steps that a teacher and school can take to increase the prestige of a minoritized language in the community?

There are several steps that a teacher and school can take to increase the prestige of a minoritized language in the community:

Provide language education: By offering classes in the minoritized language in the school, and making sure that students have access to materials and resources in that language, the school can help to increase the prestige of the language and promote its use.

Encourage use of the language in daily life: Teachers and the school can encourage students and families to use the minoritized language in their daily life, and to share their linguistic and cultural heritage with others.

Partner with community organizations: The school can partner with local organizations, such as community centers, cultural organizations, and language schools, to promote the language and provide additional opportunities for learning and cultural exchange.

Celebrate the language and culture: The school can celebrate the language and culture associated with the minoritized language by organizing cultural events, such as festivals, performances, and language competitions.

Promote language rights: The school and teacher can advocate for language rights and work to increase awareness about the importance of maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity.

Provide professional development opportunities: The school can provide professional development opportunities for teachers, such as language immersion programs, workshops, and training sessions, to help them better understand and support the language and culture of the students.

By taking these steps, a teacher and the school can help to increase the prestige of a minoritized language and support its use in the community. This can help to promote linguistic and cultural diversity, and ensure that the language continues to be passed on to future generations.

when and how a child can learn a second language.

Determining when a child has enough first language (L1) proficiency and is ready to learn a second language (L2) can be a complex process, and various factors need to be taken into consideration. Here are some of the indicators that a child has sufficient L1 proficiency and is ready to learn L2:

L1 language proficiency: A child who has a strong foundation in their L1 and can use it effectively to communicate and understand messages is likely ready to learn L2. This includes being able to use the L1 to understand and respond to complex questions, express opinions, and engage in conversation.

Age: Research has shown that younger children tend to have an easier time learning multiple languages, so age can be an indicator of readiness to learn L2. However, this is not a fixed rule, as children of any age can learn L2 if they have sufficient L1 proficiency and are motivated to do so.

Motivation: A child who is motivated and interested in learning L2 is more likely to be ready to learn it. This motivation can come from a variety of sources, including a desire to communicate with friends or family members who speak L2, or a desire to learn about a new culture or way of life.

Cognitive development: Children who have developed their cognitive abilities and are able to process information, problem-solve, and learn new skills are more likely to be ready to learn L2. This includes children who have developed their attention, memory, and executive function skills.

Social-emotional development: Children who have developed their social-emotional skills and are able to work cooperatively with others, understand and express emotions, and regulate their behavior are more likely to be ready to learn L2.

Question: What can you say about the perception that using the child's L1 in the class will lessen the opportunity to learn English?

There is a common perception that using the child's first language (L1) in the classroom will limit their opportunity to learn English, but this is not supported by research. In fact, using the child's L1 in the classroom can enhance their learning and support their development in multiple languages....(it reiterated the answers to my first question)

Question: What are the challenges in implementing multilingual education and inclusive education in a highly multilingual and poor country?

Implementing multilingual education and inclusive education in a highly multilingual and poor country can present several challenges, including: Limited resources: In many poor countries, there may be limited resources available to support multilingual education and inclusive education initiatives. This can include a shortage of trained teachers, a lack of educational materials in multiple languages, and limited funding for program implementation and sustainability. Language barriers: In a highly multilingual country, students may speak many different languages, and it can be challenging to find teachers who are fluent in all of these languages. This can make it difficult to provide effective language instruction and support to all students. Resistance to change: There may be resistance to change from some members of the community who are used to traditional approaches to education and may not understand the benefits of multilingual education and inclusive education. Cultural barriers: In a diverse society, there may be cultural barriers to inclusive education, including prejudice, discrimination, and misunderstandings about different cultural groups. Political instability: Political instability and conflict can make it difficult to implement and sustain multilingual education and inclusive education initiatives, as resources may be redirected to more immediate needs. Lack of teacher training: Teachers may not have received the training they need to effectively support multilingual learners and to create inclusive classroom environments. Low teacher morale: In a poor country, teachers may face many challenges, including low pay, inadequate working conditions, and a lack of resources. This can lead to low morale and a lack of motivation, which can impact the effectiveness of their teaching. These challenges can be overcome with dedicated efforts, including adequate funding, strong political support, and the provision of professional development opportunities for teachers.

.......

These responses by Chat.GPT are based on tons of research and reports. There is a consensus among scholars about the soundness of MLE. And these same statements have been articulated in many policy hearings at the Congress and Senate. We can only hope that our policymakers will listen to studies. To make the studies work in the Philippines, much wisdom and political will is needed, given the demographic and socio-economic realities of a developing country and the capacity of the government bureaus (DepEd, CHED, ECCD Council). For MLE to become a reality, it involves generating public acceptance, establishing a knowledge base of classroom technologies and materials at all levels and in all languages, and creating a well-planned strategy for contextualized implementation. These can be facilitated by an MLE multisectoral think tank/task force that will provide direction and technical support to current and future administrations. They should ensure that each generation of policymakers and practitioners should not balk at their duties but stay on course and do their part, building on the initiatives of their predecessors. The needs are enormous, and no less than long-term strategizing is required. This is indeed an undertaking beyond our lifetime...

Statement from Dr. Gregorio del Pilar of the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP)

 During the congressional hearing in September 2022 on Romulo/Go's bill to suspend MTB-MLE, several researchers and educators were invited to share their studies and expert opinion. The experts came from the Komisyon ng Wikang Pilipino, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Save the Children,  Deaf National Network, Talaytayan MLE, National Research Council of the Philippines, E-Net,  the Movement for Safe Equitable Quality and Relevant Education (SEQuRe), Mariano Marcos State U, University of the Philippines, and Univ of British Columbia. ALL of them acknowledged the many challenges of MTB-MLE, but NONE agreed to suspend the program. They asked Congress to instead to support MLE and provide resources to address the implementation challenges. 

Unfortunately, this week, 240 of the congressmen voted to pass the bill without showing any study to support their stand. Upon hearing the news, my daughter replied, "ano yun, trip lang nila?"  

Without a counterpart bill from the Senate, the bill is not yet a binding policy.

Below is the statement read by Dr. Gregorio del Pilar during the hearing. He is the former president of the National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP). 

You  can watch the video of the congressional hearing on their Facebook page:

.............

Pahayag sa Pagdinig ng Mababang Kapulungan sa RA 10533

Ako po ay narito bilang indibidwal, karaniwang mamamayan, at dating pangulo ng National Research Council of the Philippines (NRCP) hanggang nitong nakaraang Marso (2020-2022), at convenor ng MTB-MLE Discussion Group ng organisasyong ito.  Ako po ay nanaliksik tungkol sa isyu ng wikang panturo noong dekada 1990, kung saan nirebista ko ang mga pag-aaral (1953-1982, del Pilar, 1990) na pinaghambing ang bisa ng pagtuturo gamit ang Ingles vs. mga wikang Pilipino (Hiligaynon, Pilipino, Filipino).  Bilang pangulo ng NRCP, ako po ang nagmungkahi na isama ang MTB-MLE bilang isa sa mga paksa ng pananaliksik sa ilalim ng aming programa sa Policy Research.  Naglaan na po kami ng pondo para pag-aralan ang mga problema ng mga guro sa pagpapatupad ng MTB-MLE, at ang pagbubuo ng isang programa ng pagsasanay para tugunan ang mga problemang matutukoy (Macahilig, 2022).  

Batay po sa pag-aaral na ginawa ko sa labing-anim na eksperimento mula 1953 hanggang 1982, kasama na ang malalaking pag-aaral ni Aguilar sa Iloilo (1953) at ng Bureau of Public Schools noong 1960 sa limang rehiyong di-Tagalog, malinaw po ang lamang ng mga wikang Pilipino sa Ingles sa pagkatuto sa iba’t-ibang asignatura mula Grade I (Arithmetic, Science) hanggang sekondarya at kolehiyo (Social Studies, Advanced Arithmetic, Biology, Chemistry, Physics), at sa iba’t-ibang probinsya sa Pilipinas (Ilocos, Albay, Sorsogon, Iloilo, Antique, Cebu, Negros Oriental). Tugma po ito sa mga malawakang pananaliksik sa ibang bahagi ng mundo (e.g., Thomas & Collier, 1997) na nagpapakita na ang mga wikang mas alam ng bata ay mas mabisa bilang midyum ng pagtuturo, at ang papel ng wikang panturo na gagap ng mga bata sa pagbubuo ng batayang kognitibo para sa tuloy-tuloy na paglalim ng kaalaman sa agham, matematika, araling panlipunan at maging sa mga wikang panturong iba sa kaniyang inang wika (tulad ng Filipino at Ingles).  Ito po ang dahilan kung bakit ganap ang paniniwala ko at ng aming grupo sa NRCP na tama ang hakbang na gawing wikang panturo ang mga inang wika ng mga bata o ang pinakamalapit na wika sa kanilang inang wika na sinasalita sa kanilang lokalidad.  Matibay ang aming paniniwala rito sa kabila ng pananatili natin sa kalunos-lunos na posisyon sa dulo ng mga pandaigdigang pagsukat ng kaalaman ng ating mga estudyante matapos tayong lumipat sa sistemang MTB-MLE noong 2013.  Ito ay dahil batid namin na ang MTB-MLE ay nangangailangan ng malawakan at malalimang paghahanda na mukhang hindi pa sapat na naisasagawa ng Dep Ed at ng ibang mga kaugnay na ahensya ng gobyerno.  Subali’t naniniwala rin kami na maliban sa tamang patakaran hinggil sa wikang panturo, kailangan ding tugunan ang mga mas malawak at karagdagang mga suliranin na tinukoy ng OECD noong 2018, matapos lumabas ang resulta ng PISA, pangunahin na ang kulang na budget para sa edukasyon, at ang kakulangan ng kahandaan ng mga gurong nagpapatupad ng MTB-MLE.  Dahil ang mga problemang kinakaharap ng implementasyon ng MTB-MLE ay may tuluyang kaugnayan sa kakulangan ng budget para sa edukasyon, at dahil ito ay kabilang sa iba pang mga problema sa ating sistemang pang-edukasyon, tinatanaw naming positibong kaganapan ang pagpasa ng RA 11899 na nagbubuo ng Second Educational Congressional Commission.  Ang komprehensibong pag-aaral ng datos na maingat na kinalap ng iba't-ibang mga mananaliksik at inaasahan nating maingat ding kakalapin ng mga ahensya ng pananaliksik na lalahok sa gawain ng komisyong ito, ay nagbibigay ng malaking pag-asa na matugunan ang mga suliraning kaugnay ng implementasyon ng MTB-MLE.  

Sa halip na suspindihin ang implementasyon nito, mungkahi naming ipagpatuloy ang mga proyektong naglalayong paghusayin ito --- tulad ng proyekto ng pananaliksik na gagawin ng NRCP --- habang nakikipagtulungan tayo sa EDCOM II sa paghahanap ng mga higit na maaasahang pangmatagalang solusyon.

STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF MTB-MLE THROUGH HOUSE BILL 2188 BY REP. ROMAN ROMULO OF PASIG CITY AND HB 3925 BY REP. MARK GO OF BAGUIO CITY

 Within a span of two years, Rep. Roman Romulo, House Committee Chair on Basic Education, and Rep. Mark Go, House Committee on Technical and Higher Education, have made repeated attempts to discard MTB-MLE from RA 10533 on account of lack of learning materials. We denounce this latest attempt as nothing but pandering in its crudest form to the illusions of Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s imagined English speaking (but not understanding) nation of fifth graders.

Scrapping, guised in the form of suspension, or suspension which will lead to discontinuation, will never address the issue on “competitive education” and “lack of materials,” as the explanatory note of HB 2188 myopically tries to reduce what ails Philippine basic education. The suspension does not, and will never, guarantee quality learning, or improvement in our PISA ranking in the next cycle, or any standardized testing using English for that matter. As an ill-thought-out measure, suspension is diversionary and does not contribute to transformative reform. It is degenerative. It is akin to killing the wrong suspect without the benefit of an impartial trial.

Rep. Go’s attempt via amendment to the lapsed and month-old RA 11899, the Second Congressional Commission on Education, is an unintelligent, lazy, and desperate act at preempting whatever sensible recommendations EDCOM II may produce after a comprehensive assessment of the state of Philippine basic, technical, and higher education.

The Supreme Court has affirmed with finality the constitutionality of the use of the mother tongue as medium of instruction and this serves as a permanent injunction on any future attempt at pilfering parts or the entirety of RA 10533, of which MTB-MLE is embodied and serves as the only salient provision of the law if compared to other K-12 systems.

The introduction of MTB-MLE is based on data and evidence and built on rigorous empirical research and longitudinal studies, and favorable results from field practice. Refusal to look at evidence in favor of MTB-MLE for decades is what brought us where we are today in education outcomes. Ironically, it was only in 2009 under the “English only” president, Gloria Arroyo, that DepEd opened its evidence-resistant doors to MTB-MLE by issuing Department Order No. 74, which allowed pilot implementation in selected schools in the country.

MTB-MLE is founded on equity and inclusion. The previous restrictive bilingual policy left many learners unable to cope with the exclusionary MOI that also brought down literacy levels and erased learners’ identity. The entire Section 5 of RA 10533 is a guarantee that all school-age children in the country are given access to inclusive and equitable basic education. This guarantee is our commitment to the universal rights of our learners to be instructed in their own language.

We are fully aware of operational issues in the policy, issues that can be addressed without suspending MTB-MLE or removing a single letter in the law. The proposed suspension is a lazy excuse to blame and penalize sound policy for flawed implementation. MTB-MLE cannot be the scapegoat for the failure of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program) to exercise its oversight powers early on considering the disruption that RA 10533 bears on the entire education system.

The assessment made by the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) documented flaws in the implementation, but the study never considered suspension, nor abrogation as a solution. The long list of issues, in fact, should lead to more inquiry on how to improve policy implementation. We note problems in governance and organizational arrangements that need to be addressed, as well as issues in the delivery of quality training and technical assistance, periodic assessment and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and strengthening collaborative partnerships with stakeholders at all levels.

Suspension provides the basis for eventual cancellation, leading to reversion to the old bilingual policy, which we discarded for equity, access, and inclusionary issues that run counter to the provisions of our fundamental law and practices in linguistic communities across the country.

The suspension is scapegoating from the larger problems in education. The larger problems are in standards setting, governance, monitoring and evaluation, lack of data for decision-making, resource allocation and capacity absorption, which all affect education outcomes. With this recurring attempt at eventual cancellation in the form of suspension, we are adding defective policymaking as among the most serious problems in Philippine education.

We enjoin both committee chairs to expedite convening of the EDCOM II where material discussion on issues affecting the entire education sector are to be dealt with thoroughly with experts whose critical findings and recommendations based on reliable data will reshape policies in the coming years. Therefore, House Bills 2188 and 3925 are premature as these preempt the more conclusive findings and recommendations the EDCOM II will make.

The joint committee is better off compelling DepEd to formulate catch up measures to fully implement MTB-MLE and to conduct real, honest monitoring and evaluation to generate data to better address gaps in its implementation.

There are mid- and long-term sectoral and regional development goals that demand more time for congressional committees on education to work on, and suspension of MTB-MLE certainly is not one of them. Congress should focus on teacher education and teacher quality, especially after passing the Excellence in Teacher Education Act. It’s not too late for both committees to really take up more important issues in education other than playing with children’s right to be instructed in the language they understand.

170+ TALAYTAYAN MLE, INC.

August 27, 2022. Other position papers posted online are found in this Google folder

The MTB-MLE Movement in the Philippines: Multi-Stranded and Strategic

Somebody said that she perceived that MTB-MLE in the Philippines seems to  subscribe to only one language and education framework. I am including here my reply.

The MTB-MLE movement in the Philippines is multi-stranded, and we are trying our best to be inclusive. We hope to accommodate diverging advocacies and find spaces for dialogue, critique and mutual learning. Hopefully we find convergences that can help position our stand more strategically. Since we have limited resources, we try to find ways to maximize resources offered by government bodies and INGOs. In the past, we hardly received any support for language revitalization, including the development of our supposed developing national language. Fortunately, opportunities came through the Education for All discourse and the call to address the literacy crisis. 

The MTB-MLE strands include include discourses on language preservation,  national language formation and language for literacy. 

A group of people in the MTB-MLE movement are concerned with preserving and revitalizing our indigenous languages (including scripts and indigenous knowledge). The indigenous people groups in the Philippines suffered more (compared with the major ethnic groups) from oppressive practices (our settlement schools were based on the residential school template in North America) brought by external and internal colonization. Through activism, we've had policies for indigenous people's rights. Indigenous education supports the inclusion of indigenous knowledge (including languages and indigenous learning systems) in the curriculum. Capacitating community leaders (helping contribute to indigenous people's curriculum and engage with local district officials) is a major task. 

Other members in the MTB-MLE movement are concerned with the intellectualization of Filipino as an amalgam language (so that we will not need English as a common language). And the literacy and ECCD people in the movement want to build on the home languages of young children to help them learn reading more quickly and school competencies (including citizenship and second languages). It must be noted that though the current policy privileges this orientation, it also states MTB-MLE is meant to develop higher-order thinking skills and pride in one’s identity (DepEd Order 16 s.2012, Guidelines on the Implementation of MTB-MLE). One's identity is linked to one's cultural heritage like indigenous languages and scripts. 

Though we have differing orientations (which sometimes lead to tensions and broken relationships), we all vehemently oppose those who say that we should discard our L1s and just focus on prestige languages. However, based on experience, our government is prone to support programs that support English and the national language and so we have to engage with them and help them see the other aspects of MTB-MLE like identity and heritage issues. We also try to build a local community-based support system in various provinces by linking with the local writers, universities, local radio/TV, etc. 

 Though in most documents, we support the position of literacy starting in the home language, the MTB-MLE movement has also promoted the language revitalist discourse. One is by providing supporting to colleagues who are working with small indigenous communities. In my experience (Arzadon et al., 2019), our participatory storybook writing projects with local indigenous communities like the Iwak, Mag-Indi, and Mag-Anchi paved the way for language revitalization of dying indigenous languages. Reflecting on my research and readings, the best way for adults (teachers, parents, local writers, community leaders) to revitalize their heritage language (not just in oral but in literate form) is by participating in formulating stories and creating multilingual storybooks for their children. This set-up provides a context for meaningful and contextual learning of their language and indigenous knowledge.