The Mother Tongue Talks Back

The late Bro. Andrew Gonzalez observed way back in 1988 that the present linguistic situation in the Philippines creates a dilemma for Filipinos themselves. With the bilingual policy that was in effect then and with multilingualism, considering the use of mother-tongues in the different linguistic groups of the country, to be implemented starting June this school year, the observation of Gonzalez still holds true. The main question remains: What is the language of education in the Philippines? What should it be?

In Randy David’s article The Return of the Mother Tongue he wrote, “something is about to happen in Philippine education that may have a deep and enduring impact not only on the intellectual development of Filipino children but on their relationship with their communities as well.” With the announcement of the Department of Education that from June this year, when the new school year opens, any of 12 major local languages spoken in different regions of the country will be taught as a subject and used as a medium of instruction from kindergarten to Grade 3. Known as the “Mother Tongue-Based Multi-Lingual Education” (MTB-MLE), this paradigm shift is part of the K+12 basic education reform program. The new scheme has yielded positive results in 921 schools across the country where it has been piloted (David, 2012).

The DepEd says: “Local and international studies have shown that using the language used at home (mother tongue) inside the classroom during the learners’ early years of schooling produces better and faster learners who can easily adapt to learn a second (Filipino) and third (English) language.” This is an insight that has long been documented by teachers at the University of the Philippines Integrated School. According to UNESCO, (Gonzalez, 1988) all the sociological and psychological studies, revealed the best way to teach anybody is through the local tongue.

Gunigundo (2011) on the other hand believed that despite its claim to being research-based, the present K-12 curriculum actually ignores language-in-education findings when it provides for the use of the first language (L1) as medium of instruction for only up to Grade 3 and thereafter, with no transition whatsoever, shifts to English and Filipino as second languages (L2s) for instruction. The scheme clearly underestimates the role of oral language development in the early grades as a strong foundation to learning to read and write in both the L1 and in the L2. The provision for the L1 as a separate subject Gunigundo (2011) added is laudable but cannot make up for the deleterious effects of the early-exit nature of the K-12 curriculum.

Tolentino laments in her article Help!Her college students do not know their Grammar. She handled first year college English grammar so her students were fresh from high school, and yet they had no mastery of their high school English grammar. Many English language teachers I suppose can very well relate to this predicament of Ms. Tolentino. Is this the offshoot of their not being taught in the mother-tongue during their formative years in basic education? We are not trying to pass on the bucket to basic education teachers but this concern can be traced back to a cluster of confusing if not conflicting language policies since the time of American colonization and with the administrations from Quezon to Benigno Aquino III not having a unified and decisive language policy. We can even push back the date during the Spanish colonial regime but education then was limited to the privileged few. These shifting policies have contributed to the dilemma mentioned by Gonzalez.

The Philippines is characterized by extraordinary language complexity (Tollefson, 1991).  With the 12 major languages and hundreds of dialects the main question remains: what language(s) should be used in education. This brings us (Tollefson, 2006) to the “current concern of language rights, particularly in education. . .on the widely held assumptions about the right to mother-tongue education.” While some researchers (e.g. Phillipson, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) support the right to education in the mother tongue, others argue that policies favoring mother-tongue education can be components in strategies to maintain the social, economic, and political advantage of dominant groups (see Ricento & Wiley, 2002 as cited in Tollefson, 2006). Clearly, there is a need for additional analyses of mother-tongue policies that may be linked to social and political agendas unrelated to language rights, but instead to struggles for political power (Tsui & Tollefson, 2004).

Aside from Tollefson, this paper is anchored on Hurley’s work on The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction (1996). Her work brings to the fore the notion that both multicultural and bilingual education subscribe to the fundamental idea that schooling should utilize students’ knowledge of the world as the starting point and resource for learning. She mentioned, “for all students, language is perhaps the single most important aspect of culture since language is the primary means by which each of us is enculturated—that is, brought into our particular communities of behavior and belief.”She further added, “primary language is a deep resource which schooling should validate and enhance. . . alongside English.”

Bibliography

David, Randy. (2012, March 15) Public Lives . The Return of the Mother Tongue.  Philippine Daily

       Inquirer. 

Gunigundo, Magtanggol T. (2011, November 19) Why schools are failing our children. Philippine

       Daily Inquirer.

Hurley, Judith L. (1996). The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction. N.Y. Longman Publishers

       USA

Mabanglo, Ruth Elynia and Galang, Rosita (eds.). 2010.Essays on Philippine Language and 

       Literature. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Quismundo, Tarra. (2011, July 7)UP, Ateneo make it to top 50 world’s best English-teaching

 universities. Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Tolentino, Sandra Mijares. (2012, February 19)Help! Her college students don’t know their

       grammar. Philippine Daily Inquirer.