Full text of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533 “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013″

Republic Act No. 10533

S. No. 3286
H. No. 6643

Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fifteenth Congress
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-third day of July, two thousand twelve.

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533]

AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013″.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people, the country and society-at-large.

Likewise, it is hereby declared the policy of the State that every graduate of basic education shall be an empowered individual who has learned, through a program that is rooted on sound educational principles and geared towards excellence, the foundations for learning throughout life, the competence to engage in work and be productive, the ability to coexist in fruitful harmony with local and global communities, the capability to engage in autonomous, creative, and critical thinking, and the capacity and willingness to transform others and one’s self.

For this purpose, the State shall create a functional basic education system that will develop productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential competencies, skills and values for both life-long learning and employment. In order to achieve this, the State shall:

(a) Give every student an opportunity to receive quality education that is globally competitive based on a pedagogically sound curriculum that is at par with international standards;

(b) Broaden the goals of high school education for college preparation, vocational and technical career opportunities as well as creative arts, sports and entrepreneurial employment in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; and

(c) Make education learner-oriented and responsive to the needs, cognitive and cultural capacity, the circumstances and diversity of learners, schools and communities through the appropriate languages of teaching and learning, including mother tongue as a learning resource.

SEC. 3. Basic Education. — Basic education is intended to meet basic learning needs which provides the foundation on which subsequent learning can be based. It encompasses kindergarten, elementary and secondary education as well as alternative learning systems for out-of-school learners and those with special needs.

SEC. 4. Enhanced Basic Education Program. — The enhanced basic education program encompasses at least one (1) year of kindergarten education, six (6) years of elementary education, and six (6) years of secondary education, in that sequence. Secondary education includes four (4) years of junior high school and two (2) years of senior high school education.

Kindergarten education shall mean one (1) year of preparatory education for children at least five (5) years old as a prerequisite for Grade I.

Elementary education refers to the second stage of compulsory basic education which is composed of six (6) years. The entrant age to this level is typically six (6) years old.

Secondary education refers to the third stage of compulsory basic education. It consists of four (4) years of junior high school education and two (2) years of senior high school education. The entrant age to the junior and senior high school levels are typically twelve (12) and sixteen (16) years old, respectively.

Basic education shall be delivered in languages understood by the learners as the language plays a strategic role in shaping the formative years of learners.

For kindergarten and the first three (3) years of elementary education, instruction, teaching materials and assessment shall be in the regional or native language of the learners. The Department of Education (DepED) shall formulate a mother language transition program from Grade 4 to Grade 6 so that Filipino and English shall be gradually introduced as languages of instruction until such time when these two (2) languages can become the primary languages of instruction at the secondary level.

For purposes of this Act, mother language or first Language (LI) refers to language or languages first learned by a child, which he/she identifies with, is identified as a native language user of by others, which he/she knows best, or uses most. This includes Filipino sign language used by individuals with pertinent disabilities. The regional or native language refers to the traditional speech variety or variety of Filipino sign language existing in a region, area or place.

SEC. 5. Curriculum Development. — The DepED shall formulate the design and details of the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and duplication of basic education subjects, the DepED shall coordinate with the CHED and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake consultations with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders.

The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum:

(a) The curriculum shall be learner-centered, inclusive and developmentally appropriate;

(b) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based;

(c) The curriculum shall be culture-sensitive;

(d) The curriculum shall be contextualized and global;

(e) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative;

(f) The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown; instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available;

(g) The curriculum shall use the spiral progression approach to ensure mastery of knowledge and skills after each level; and

(h) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize, indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social contexts. The production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be encouraged and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.

SEC. 6. Curriculum Consultative Committee. — There shall be created a curriculum consultative committee chaired by the DepED Secretary or his/her duly authorized representative and with members composed of, but not limited to, a representative each from the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and a representative from the business chambers such as the Information Technology – Business Process Outsourcing (IT-BPO) industry association. The consultative committee shall oversee the review and evaluation on the implementation of the basic education curriculum and may recommend to the DepED the formulation of necessary refinements in the curriculum.

SEC. 7. Teacher Education and Training. — To ensure that the enhanced basic education program meets the demand for quality teachers and school leaders, the DepED and the CHED, in collaboration with relevant partners in government, academe, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, shall conduct teacher education and training programs, as specified:

(a) In-service Training on Content and Pedagogy — Current DepED teachers shall be retrained to meet the content and performance standards of the new K to 12 curriculum.

The DepED shall ensure that private education institutions shall be given the opportunity to avail of such training.

(b) Training of New Teachers. — New graduates of the current Teacher Education curriculum shall undergo additional training, upon hiring, to upgrade their skills to the content standards of the new curriculum. Furthermore, the CHED, in coordination with the DepED and relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the Teacher Education curriculum offered in these Teacher Education Institutes (TEIs) will meet necessary quality standards for new teachers. Duly recognized organizations acting as TEIs, in coordination with the DepED, the CHED, and other relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the curriculum of these organizations meet the necessary quality standards for trained teachers.

(c) Training of School Leadership. — Superintendents, principals, subject area coordinators and other instructional school leaders shall likewise undergo workshops and training to enhance their skills on their role as academic, administrative and community leaders.

Henceforth, such professional development programs as those stated above shall be initiated and conducted regularly throughout the school year to ensure constant upgrading of teacher skills.

SEC. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. — Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the “Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994″, the DepED and private education institutions shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject:

(a) Graduates of science, mathematics, statistics, engineering, music and other degree courses with shortages in qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in their specialized subjects in the elementary and secondary education. Qualified LET applicants shall also include graduates admitted by foundations duly recognized for their expertise in the education sector and who satisfactorily complete the requirements set by these organizations: Provided, That they pass the LET within five (5) years after their date of hiring: Provided, further, That if such graduates are willing to teach on part-time basis, the provisions of LET shall no longer be required;

(b) Graduates of technical-vocational courses to teach in their specialized subjects in the secondary education: Provided, That these graduates possess the necessary certification issued by the TESDA: Provided, further, That they undergo appropriate in-service training to be administered by the DepED or higher education institutions (HEIs) at the expense of the DepED;

(c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in their general education or subject specialties in the secondary education: Provided, That the faculty must be a holder of a relevant Bachelor’s degree, and must have satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI faculty;

(d) The DepED and private education institutions may hire practitioners, with expertise in the specialized learning areas offered by the Basic Education Curriculum, to teach in the secondary level; Provided, That they teach on part-time basis only. For this purpose, the DepED, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies, shall determine the necessary qualification standards in hiring these experts.

SEC. 9. Career Guidance and Counselling Advocacy. — To properly guide the students in choosing the career tracks that they intend to pursue, the DepED, in coordination with the DOLE, the TESDA and the CHED, shall regularly conduct career advocacy activities for secondary level students. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9258, otherwise known as the “Guidance and Counselling Act of 2004″, career and employment guidance counsellors, who are not registered and licensed guidance counsellors, shall be allowed to conduct career advocacy activities to secondary level students of the school where they are currently employed; Provided, That they undergo a training program to be developed or accredited by the DepED.

SEC. 10. Expansion of E-GASTPE Beneficiaries. — The benefits accorded by Republic Act No. 8545, or the “Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act”, shall be extended to qualified students enrolled under the enhanced basic education.

The DepED shall engage the services of private education institutions and non-DepED schools offering senior high school through the programs under Republic Act No. 8545, and other financial arrangements formulated by the DepED and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) based on the principles of public-private partnership.

SEC. 11. Appropriations. — The Secretary of Education shall include in the Department’s program the operationalization of the enhanced basic education program, the initial funding of which shall be charged against the current appropriations of the DepED. Thereafter, the amount necessary for the continued implementation of the enhanced basic education program shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 12. Transitory Provisions. — The DepED, the CHED and the TESDA shall formulate the appropriate strategies and mechanisms needed to ensure smooth transition from the existing ten (10) years basic education cycle to the enhanced basic education (K to 12) cycle. The strategies may cover changes in physical infrastructure, manpower, organizational and structural concerns, bridging models linking grade 10 competencies and the entry requirements of new tertiary curricula, and partnerships between the government and other entities. Modeling for senior high school may be implemented in selected schools to simulate the transition process and provide concrete data for the transition plan.

To manage the initial implementation of the enhanced basic education program and mitigate the expected multi-year low enrolment turnout for HEIs and Technical Vocational Institutions (TVIs) starting School Year 2016-2017, the DepED shall engage in partnerships with HEIs and TVIs for the utilization of the latter’s human and physical resources. Moreover, the DepED, the CHED, the TESDA, the TVIs and the HEIs shall coordinate closely with one another to implement strategies that ensure the academic, physical, financial, and human resource capabilities of HEIs and TVIs to provide educational and training services for graduates of the enhanced basic education program to ensure that they are not adversely affected. The faculty of HEIs and TVIs allowed to teach students of secondary education under Section 8 hereof, shall be given priority in hiring for the duration of the transition period. For this purpose, the transition period shall be provided for in the implementing rules and regulations (IRK).

SEC. 13. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational Program (K to 12 Program). — There is hereby created a Joint Oversight Committee to oversee, monitor and evaluate the implementation of this Act.

The Oversight Committee shall be composed of five (5) members each from the Senate and from the House of Representatives, including Chairs of the Committees on Education, Arts and Culture, and Finance of both Houses. The membership of the Committee for every House shall have at least two (2) opposition or minority members.

SEC. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. — By the end of School Year 2014-2015, the DepED shall conduct a mandatory review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the status of implementation of the K to 12 program in terms of closing the following current shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c) textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other shortages that should be addressed.

The DepED shall include among others, in this midterm report, the following key metrics of access to and quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention rate; (c) National Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate; (e) teachers’ welfare and training profiles; (f) adequacy of funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including, but not limited to, computer and science laboratories, libraries and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.

SEC. 15. Commitment to International Benchmarks. — The DepED shall endeavor to increase the per capita spending on education towards the immediate attainment of international benchmarks.

SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Within ninety (90) days after the effectivity of this Act, the DepED Secretary, the CHED Chairperson and the TESDA Director-General shall promulgate the rules and regulations needed for the implementation of this Act.

SEC. 17. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions hereof.

SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. — Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the “Education Act of 1982″, Republic Act No. 9155 or the “Governance of Basic Education.

Act of 2001″, Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 19. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. Speaker of the House of Representatives

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE President of the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3286 and House Bill No. 6643 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on January 30, 2013.

(Sgd.) MARILYN BARUA-YAP Secretary General House of Representatives

(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELEN Acting Senate Secretary

Approved: MAY 15 2013

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines

Remembering the MTBMLE Trailblazers

On May 15, 2013, President Benigno Aquino III finally signed into law the "Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013." The law provides the framework for the implementation of Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education (along with the use of culturally friendly materials) as part of the K-12 Program. Somebody remarked that MTBMLE made the K-12 program truly transformative.

Congratulations  to the authors of the bill, especially to Sen Ralph Recto and Cong Magi Gunigundo for fighting hard to insert the use of the late exit version of MTBMLE as part of the K-12 program. At first, most of us were ready to settle with the early exit version of MTBMLE (abruptly ending at grade 3) but Cong Magi Gunigundo insisted that the late exit version (transitioning up to grade 6) must be upheld and so we wrote that open letter to the Senate.   We are pleased to see the final outcome. It is a reason to celebrate and thank God for how he made things possible. We never imagined that MTBMLE would be institutionalized into a law in such a short period of time. There is this sense of exhilaration and relief. 

Back in 2008, travelling around the country to conduct awareness raising for MTBMLE seemed like a lonely task given the little resources that we had  and the indifferent if not hostile reactions of people about the use of local languages in education.  It should be noted that Dr. Ricky Nolasco (with a strong push from Dr. Ariel Agcaoili of NAKEM) along with Cong Magi led an aggressive nonstop advocacy efforts for MTBMLE (teaching classes on weekdays and travelling almost every weekend). In addition, Nolasco wrote the MTBMLE Primer and brochure, a series of articles published in the Daily Inquirer, seminar-workshop presentations, speeches, and the first MTBMLE resource book, "Starting Where the Children Are" (published in 2010)

SIL and TAP (Dekkers, Catherine Young, Mel Awid, Leslie Gumba) provided the resources needed for the teachers training and materials development. Our friends in DepEd like Dr Para Giron, Dr. Yolly Quijano,  Dr. Vilma Labrador, Dr. Diosdado San Antonio, Dr. Opay Tuy, Dr. Rose Villaneza, and NEDA (Nap Imperial) did the spadework in crafting policies and mobilizing  support for the initial teachers training and materials development. Dr. Dina Ocampo included MTBMLE in her BESRA paper and she (along with Dr. Allan Bernardo and Dr. Cynthia Bautista) highlighted the value of MTBMLE in their UP Centennial Lecture in 2008.

Others like LSP (Dr. Isabel Martin), PNU (Dr. Lydia Liwanag; Rose Suatengco),  NAKEM, Akademiyang Bisaya, Save the Children, APC, WVSU (Dr, Purita Bilbao), Capitol U (Dr. Amor de Torres) LSU (Voltaire Oyzon), MMSU (Dr. Ale Visaya), SLU (Jane Lartec), FWWPP (Butch Hernandez), Mayor Jessi Robredo, Joe Padre, Kiko Datar, Arnold Azurin, Tony Igcalinos, Gloria Baguingan, Aleli Domingo, Dr. Abuso, Firth McEachern, the Lubuagan/Valenzuela teachers  and many others  did their part in trailblazing for  MTBMLE.  These people worked hard and many shed a tear to assert for the merits of MTBMLE. In few instances I saw them set aside their differences and come together to show solidarity like during the 1st Philippine MTBMLE Conference in 2010.

The task before us now is to prove that MTBMLE is the way to go. We need to train teachers and help them and their local  communities produce teaching materials in their local languages (especially those not included in the initial list of languages that received initial support from the national government for materials devt). I am glad that the law allows NGOs to help provide teachers training. There is also a need to develop orthographies and spelling guides. TEIs should put their act together and integrate MTBMLE in their curriculum.... 

We have only just begun... MTBMLE and the K-12 program  provided us a door thru which we can help improve the quality of education in the country. There might be some disagreeable provisions in the law but it provides an adequate space to explore new options in education.   Personally, I feel grateful that I had the chance to witness the sincere and passionate efforts our trailblazers made to honor our languages and cultures, and provide quality and relevant education to our Filipino  learners. I sincerely hope their efforts will not be in vain 


To cite this article:
Arzadon, C. (2013, May 5). Remembering our MTBMLE Trailblazers. Retrieved from: http://mothertongue-based.blogspot.com/2013/05/remembering-mtbmle-trailblazers.html

Open Letter to the Senate re K-12 Bill

Dear Senators:

This letter is in regards to Senate Bill No. 3286, “An Act Enhancing the Philippine Education System by Strengthening its Curriculum and Increasing the Number of Years for Basic Education, Appropriating Funds Thereof and for Other Purposes.” We are aware it will be voted upon very soon. May we earnestly request, before doing so, that you consider one further revision.

We, a coalition of concerned education advocates, would first like to congratulate the Senators involved in the formulation of the aforementioned K-12 bill. In particular, we are delighted by the provision for mother tongue education found in Sec. 9:

SEC. 9. Medium of Instruction. - The mother tongue of the learner also known as the first language (FL), home language, native language or vernacular shall be the primary medium of instruction for teaching and learning from the kindergarten level to Grade 3 of the elementary education. The DepEd in coordination with the Commission on Filipino Language and in close collaboration with academic and research institutions concerned with education shall formulate a mother-tongue-based multilingual framework for teaching and learning in the kindergarten and elementary education.

This provision affirms the importance of Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) in linguistically and culturally diverse countries such as the Philippines, and is aligned with the Department of Education’s policy reforms. DepEd’s ongoing implementation of MTBMLE is the first time the Philippine education system has seriously addressed the language education needs of the nation’s basic education learners. We believe that this is a landmark legislation that improves on previous educational initiatives.

The provision of Section 9, however, falls short in delivering an education system that is truly accessible and equitable for all Filipinos. Local and international research attests to the superiority of using the mother tongue for six to eight years, alongside second languages as subjects. Adequate representation of the mother tongue has proven to foster cognitive, academic, language and socio-cultural development, and eases the process of learning other languages like English. Please see attached document for elaboration on this crucial concern.

Thus, may we respectfully propose an amended version of SEC. 9 of SB No. 3286 as follows:

SEC. 9. Medium of Teaching and Learning. - The mother tongue of the learner also known as the first language (L1), home language, native language or vernacular shall be the primary medium of instruction for teaching and learning from the kindergarten level to Grade 6 of the elementary education. The DepEd in coordination with the Commission on Filipino Language, National Commission of Indigenous Peoples, academic institutions, and research organizations concerned with education and languages shall formulate a mother-tongue-based multilingual framework, which shall include a gradual introduction of other languages in preparation for higher levels.

Alternatively, instead of specifying a Grade 6 horizon for mother tongue education, the text could read “until at least Grade 3.” This would give DepEd flexibility to extend the program based on future evaluation.

The K to 12 basic education framework—with an adequate multilingual policy—will address our educational goals head on, creating analytical, confident, and versatile students.  

Thank you for your consideration.

RATIONALE FOR A STRONGER MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION MODEL 

Societies marked by plurality call for multilingual and multicultural education systems. The Philippines is a diverse country comprised of over 150 native languages, with the largest dozen accounting for over 1 million speakers each. We have gradually come to the realization that one size certainly does not fit all in education practice, and hence the emergence of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) in the discourse of policy reform.

The first and foremost principle of a quality MTBMLE curriculum is the use of the learners’ first language (L1) for the majority of subject matter, for as long as possible.

International research in education, language acquisition, psycholinguistics and applied linguistics^[1] come to the same following conclusions with regard to effective language education:

●       The first language (L1) generally needs to be reinforced and developed for 12 years in order for successful second language learning and academic success to take place, i.e. from birth to 12 years old (6 years in the home environment and another 6 years in formal schooling).

●       International second language acquisition literature indicates that under optimal conditions, it takes from six to eight years for a student to learn a second language in school (as a subject) sufficiently well to use it as a main medium of instruction.

●       Language education models that remove the first language as a primary medium of teaching and learning before it has been used for six years will facilitate little success for the majority of learners. Language education models that retain the first language as a primary medium of instruction for at least six years can succeed under very well resourced conditions. Eight years of mother tongue education may be enough under less well-resourced conditions.

Given these findings, our position is that Filipino children are being under-served by the K-12’s restriction of the first language (L1) to only Grades K-3. Additionally, we have observed that this minimum standard is being regularly eroded by some who are saying that learners can be transitioned from L1 education even earlier.

Thus, based on the research above, allow us to summarize a rationale for extending the mother tongue policy to Grade Six:

1         Higher enrollment, retention, and achievement rates are correlated with longer use of the mother tongue / first language (in the majority of cases), especially in developing countries and marginalized populations.^[2]

2        Academic gains observed from mother tongue-based education can regress if a child is pulled out of the language before developing mastery in it. A Grade 3 cut-off makes it difficult for the child to adjust to a new medium of instruction (for which he has only received 3 years of second language instruction, rather than a more solid 6). An early transition from L1 to L2/L3 not only relegates the child to Grade 3 proficiency in his own language, but also frustrates the learning of other subjects. According to Save the Children, children can become “stranded between languages,” with only very basic skills in each. They may never achieve the level of learning and communication they need to get basic education qualifications and do well later in life.^[3]

3        It is a pervasive myth that the first language (L1) needs to be pushed aside so that the second language (L2) can be learned. There is little scientific evidence supporting the superiority of an early exit model (transition from the L1 at Grade 3) over an extended model (transition at Grade 6 or beyond). In fact, longitudinal research such as that of Thomas and Collier (1997, 2002) demonstrates that long-term L1 development results in the most successful L2 learning and overall school performance (see Attachment A).  In this regard, the process of learning important global languages like English is made easier if children can begin learning in their mother tongue and strategically transfer to the new language at the appropriate time.  

4        The use of the Mother Tongue (MT) until Grade 6 has a better chance of delivering what DepEd promises of the K-12 curriculum — multilingual, multiliterate, and critically thinking Filipinos. Whereas, given the poor track record of early exit models, the current Grade 3 exit will likely fail in raising achievement levels and undermine the original intent of the reform.

5        Apprehension and confusion are evident among implementers about the Grade 3 exit. DepEd mass trainings have presented the theories and motivations of MTB-MLE, sharing slides containing information confirming the advantages of using the mother tongue for as long as possible. The teachers and administrators are then left wondering why DepEd’s mother tongue policy is cut short at Grade 3. Why does the length not conform to the very research DepEd cites in justifying the MTB-MLE program?

6        Six years of learning English and Filipino as subjects (with mother tongue being used for all other subjects) will give learners time to gain sufficient competence in the respective languages to use them effectively as mediums of instruction after Grade 6. Furthermore, teachers and pupils will have more time to make a smooth and measured transition from the mother tongue to these languages.

7        Local governments, such as the Provincial Government of La Union, have submitted position papers to the Senate and Congress in support of MTB-MLE until Grade 6, with concomitant strengthening of English at the secondary level. 

8       The extended use of the mother tongue is legally sound. The constitution does not specify the number of years the national and official languages must be used as mediums of instruction, it merely states that they are mediums of instruction. The use of various Philippine languages until Grade 6 would not negate the fact that English and Filipino continue to be mediums of instruction in our educational system, both as mother tongues (for some pupils), separate language subjects, and in high school. Furthermore, mother tongue education—as witnessed by numerous pilot studies—shall improve learning of English and Filipino, thereby supporting their official functions.

9        UNESCO recommends “bilingual and/or multilingual education at all levels of education as a means of promoting both social and gender equality and as a key element of linguistically diverse countries.”^[4] Being among the top 20 most linguistically diverse countries in the world, it is especially important that the Philippines pays close attention and sensitivity to its language-in-education policies.   Robust multilingual education plays a crucial role in safeguarding linguistic and cultural heritage of humanity; sensitizing youth to dialogue, tolerance, and mutual respect between different cultures; and democratically expanding access to knowledge.^[5]

10    The best language-in-education models include a role for the first language or mother tongue (L1) throughout all year levels until the end of high school. These are known as additive education models (see Attachment B for a comparison of various medium of instruction models). Using the mother tongue until Grade 6 should thus already be considered a compromise and is the bare minimum recommended.

11     The current K-12 curriculum structure as presented in D.O. 31 s. 2012 contains some anomalies. Despite the fact that the K-12 Steering Committee, the Regional K-12 Summits, the K-12 informational videos and the mass K-12 trainings have all shown that MAPEH will be in English (after the mother tongue period), D.O. 31 surprisingly indicates that it will be in Filipino for Grades 4 and 5, followed by English. EPP/TLE follows the same pattern, which is a relic of the BEC curriculum of 2002. There is no evidence that jumping to Filipino for two years shall facilitate the learning of these subjects nor ease the transition to English. Such a sequence would also establish an inequality: given the fact that Filipino is based primarily on Tagalog, the use of Filipino in Grades 4 and 5 will essentially bestow pupils in Tagalog regions with 6 years of mother tongue education (K-G5), with a single significant transition to English occurring in Grade 6. By contrast, children in other regions will only enjoy mother tongue until Grade 3, followed by two major transitions—Filipino at Grade 4 and English at Grade 6. This shall create inefficiencies in learning and pose extra burden on non-Tagalog children. The extension of the MTBMLE program to Grade 6 would cleanly eliminate the bizarre sequence contained in D.O. 31, ensuring that all children make only one language transition per subject, and all at the same time.

Given the above facts, our position is that mother tongue / first language (L1) education in all subject areas must be preserved for at least 6 years (K–G6). If it is not, cognitive development in the L1 – which in turn allows for effective skill development, including critical thinking and problem-solving skills in other languages – will suffer significantly. In turn, achievement and retention rates in school will remain mediocre.

At the very least, certain subjects such as Araling Panlipunan, EPP/TLE, MAPEH, and EsP should use the mother tongue until Grade 6. These are the subjects most often cited by teachers as naturally suitable for the mother tongue, as they generally do not require esoteric technical vocabulary and the content lends itself to localization. Additionally, a separate Mother Tongue subject beyond Grade 3 is advantageous to allow the continuing transfer of linguistic and cognitive skills across languages.

In 5 to 10 years, we are confident that DepEd and national legislators will have the positive results to justify why they chose to adopt the stronger mother tongue model.

Appendix A: Expected proficiency in a second language of pupils in different education models.

Graphs adapted from: Thomas & Collier, 1997:53. Their study, being one of the largest and longest-range studies of its kind, illustrates that students who transition from the mother tongue (MT) after Grade 3 show improvement during the MT years but regress thereafter. Students who transition later, at Grade 6, level off in performance, but at least do not regress. The pupils who showed the highest English reading proficiency by the time of graduation were those in dual medium programs, wherein MT formed a part in the curriculum until the end of schooling. Although this experiment was for non-English students in North America, recent studies in Africa show remarkable similarities in student performance, with early exit MT models (Grade 3) producing disappointingly low proficiency in the target language (e.g. English) compared with programs in which the MT was integrated for longer (Ouane & Glanz, Eds., 2011). The theories of language acquisition are well established, and for this reason, we earnestly recommend the use of the mother tongue until at least Grade 6.

Appendix B: Types of education models:

Subtractive Education Model: The objective of the subtractive model is to move learners out of the mother tongue and into the official/foreign language as a medium of instruction as early as possible. Sometimes this involves going straight to the official/foreign language medium of instruction in the first year of school. Many countries in Africa and Asia use these models inherited from the colonial era. This is the model that the Philippines has used for most of its public education history.

Early-Exit Transition Model: The objective of this model is the same as the subtractive one. It is designed for fluency in one or two target languages by the end of school years; the target being a national and/or foreign language. The learners may begin with the mother tongue and then gradually move to the official/foreign language as medium of instruction. If the transition to the official/foreign language takes place within one to four years it is called an early-exit/transition model. This is the model followed by the current K-12 curriculum espoused in D.O. 31 s. 2012.

Extended Transition Model: This model involves the transition from mother tongue as a medium of instruction to a different target language after five or six years. This model promotes additive multilingualism, where effective first and second language pedagogy is used in the classroom along with adequate content area literacy instruction. The extended transition model can be further enhanced with the inclusion of a mother tongue subject at higher levels. We recommend this model through the extension of DepEd’s MTBMLE program until Grade 6.

Additive (Full Bilingual/Multilingual) Education Models: In the additive education model, the objective is the use of mother tongue as a medium of instruction throughout the school years (with the official/foreign language taught as a subject) or the use of mother tongue plus official/foreign language as simultaneous media of instruction until the end of school. In the additive education model, the mother tongue is never removed as a medium of instruction and never used less than 50 per cent of the day/subject. Therefore, the target is a high level of proficiency in the mother tongue plus a high level of proficiency in the official/foreign language.

---

^[1] (see for example: Malherbe, 1943; Bamgbose, 1984a, 2000a; 2004a, b; Fafunwa, 1990; Macdonald, 1990; Ramirez et al., 1991; Hartshorne, 1992; Dutcher and Tucker, 1995; ADEA, 1996, 1997; Garcia and Baker, 1996; Elugbe, 1996; Küper (ed), 1998; Thomas and Collier, 1997, 2002, 2004; Baker, 2002; Heugh, 2003)

^[2] Save the Children, 2011. Closer to Home: how to help schools in low- and middle-income countries respond to children’s language needs

^[3] Save the Children, 2009. Steps Towards Learning: a guide to overcoming language barriers in children’s education

^[4] UNESCO Guidelines on Language and Education as found in Education in A Multilingual World, UNESCO Position Paper (2003)

^[5] UNESCO Resolution on “Implementation of a language policy for the world based on multilingualism,” Records of the General Conference, 30th Session, 26 October–17 November, 1999, Volume 1. pg. 35

Sincere Regards,

AURELIO AGCAOILI, PHD
Nakem Conferences Philippines/University of Hawaii-Manoa

MARIA MERCEDES ARZADON
College of Education, UP Diliman


MELINDA AWID
Translators Association of the Philippines


NAPOLEON IMPERIAL, CESO III
Commission of Higher Education

MANUEL LINO FAELNAR, ESQ
Akademiyang Bisaya Foundation

PARALUMAN GIRON, PHD
K-12 Curriculum Consultant - DepEd
Former Regional Director, DepEd


ANTONIO IGCALINOS
Integrated Creative Resources Institute


VILMA LABRADOR
Former Undersecretary - DepEd

LYDIA LIWANAG, PHD
Language Study Center
Philippine Normal University

FIRTH MCEACHERN
Consultant, Office of the Governor
Provincial Government, La Union