For the past 1 1/2 years, I participated in developing the MTB-MLE Operations Manual. It was a joint project of UNICEF and DepEd. The process involved reviewing related literature and interviewing MTB-MLE implementers. Our team examined reports, scholarly articles, and other related literature on MTB-MLE and other forms of multilingual education. We also analyzed the practices that our Filipino teachers have developed for the past decade of program implementation. We found that many schools adopted the MTB-MLE training they received ten years ago and they also did their own tweaking. Some created new tools and approaches. The initiatives and results were uneven, depending on the presence of trained and committed education leaders and teachers.
It is commendable that DepEd formulated policies that supported MTB-MLE that touched on teacher hiring (L1 proficiency is part of qualification), materials development, language mapping, integration of indigenous knowledge, the procedure in adding new languages as a medium of instruction, performance management, handling linguistically diverse contexts, etc.
Literacy instruction in the MTB-MLE framework is informed by the balanced literacy approach that combines the whole language and code-based instruction. It is often called the Two-Track Approach introduced by SIL. Many schools used the Marungko and the Four-Pronged Approach introduced by our own literacy experts to teach literacy in L1.
To provide content on bridging from L1 to L2, our team referred to the the training on Bridging plus multilingual education related programs in other countries like the following: Dual Language Immersion Program, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), Language Independent Literacies (LILIEMA) and Translanguaging. In addition to reading the manuals of these programs, we also interviewed their trainers and practitioners.
I realized that MTB-MLE requires addressing the various dimensions of the teaching process. It must also be noted that for best results, the requirement for MTB-MLE is not just to change the medium of instruction and use L1 for a short time. There should be conditions to be met. The longitudinal study on bilingual education study involving 700,000 students conducted by Thomas and Collier (1997) found that positive results came about with the following factors:
• Cognitively challenging academic instruction in the students’ L1 for as long as possible, at least five or six years
• The use of interactive methods in teaching through the two languages.
• A school environment that supports multilingual learning.
Institutionalizing the program in the Philippine educational system demands examining how MTB-MLE can be embedded in the various parts of the bureaucracy. Moreover, since the teachers are asked to exert a lot of effort to make the program work, there should also be a corresponding mechanism for training and granting of support and incentives.
Honestly, I realized more than ever, how daunting the task of implementing MTB-MLE. However, we cannot revert to the old English/Filipino-only education policy. It would certainly require commitment, perseverance, and time to make the program work all over the country. Tragically, some policymakers would like to rescind the policy without giving it the chance to take root. This insidious move in Congress should be constantly resisted. There is no other option but to move forward. Other stakeholders, especially the academe, should continuously and strongly support MTB-MLE towards its full implementation.
Below are the major topics covered by the MTB-MLE Operations Manual.
- Essential Components of the MTB-MLE Program
- The MTB-MLE Curriculum
- Four Minima for MTB-MLE Implementation
- Contextualization of the Mother Tongue Curriculum
- Development of Learning Resources
- Use of Mother Tongue in Teaching and Learning
- Oral Language Development
- Two-Track Method
- Instruction from L1 to L2/L3
- Planning and Management of the Curriculum
- Assessment and Reporting
- Classroom Assessment
- Contextualized, Linguistically Appropriate Assessment
- Language Proficiency vs Content Proficiency
- Professional Learning and Development of Teachers for MTB-MLE
- Recruitment, Hiring and Deployment of Teachers and Teacher Assistants
- Monitoring and Evaluation of MTB-MLE Program
- School Leadership
- MTB-MLE Transition Plan
Here is the link to the draft of the MTB-MLE Operations Manual. This is still a draft. It is not meant for reproduction. This however can be a basis for action research projects in various regions. UNICEF and DepEd would enhance the draft some more and be presented in a more readable format. Hopefully it would be accompanied with a DepEd Order or Memo.
The ones who provided content and direction were DepEd officials from the Bureau of Learning Delivery headed by Dr. Leila Areola, Regional MTB-MLE Focal Persons (led by the National MTB-MLE Focal Person, Dr. Rosalina Villaneza and her team Mr. Luiz Gaudencio and Ms. Nemia Cedo), the DepEd's National MTB-MLE Trainers, Ms. Ina Aquino (of ABC +) and UNICEF's Ms. Cheche Olayvar and Ms. Cecil Dajoyag. The draft was validated by 3 groups - education supervisors, school heads and MT teachers.
The following also commented on the contents: Dr. Diane Dekker, Dr. Fredrick Lupke, Ms. Mirriam Weidl and Mr. Efren Lubuguin.
Thanks to my friend Angel Vasquez for introducing me to her co-teachers who use SIOP.
Members of the writing team were Dr. Sangsok Son, Mhawi Rosero, Svet Mendoza, Jakey Rosauro, Fern Colicol and yours truly (Ched Arzadon).
