FILIPINO:
The National
Language
of Education
Filipino: The National Language of Education
Copyright © 2017, Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino
All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the authors and the publisher.
Editor: Manre Kilates
Book & Cover Design by MK
Executed in In-Design by Nica Ginez
Cover Photo: Dinadiawan (Aurora) Cliff Face by Laurence Bañez
National Library of the Philippines CIP Data
ISBN
Published by
KOMISYON SA WIKANG FILIPINO
Watson Bldg, 1610 J.P. Laurel Street, 1005 Manila
Tel. No. (02) 733-7260 • (02) 736-2525
Email:komisyonsawikangfilipino@gmail.com•Website: www.kwf.gov.ph
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS
633 General Luna Street, Intramuros, 1002 Manila
Tel. No. 527-2192 to 97 • Fax: 527-2191 to 94
Email: info@ncca.gov.ph • Website: www.ncca.gov.ph
The National Commission for Culture and the Arts is the overall coordination and policymaking government
body that systematizes and streamlines national efforts in promoting culture and the arts. The NCCA
promotes cultural and artistic development: conserves and promotes the nation’s historical and cultural
heritages; ensures the widest dissemination of artistic and cultural products among the greatest number across
the country; preserves and integrates traditional culture and its various expressions as dynamic part of the
national cultural mainstream; and ensures that standards of excellence are pursued in programs and activities.
The NCCA administers the National Endowment Fund for Culture and the Arts (NEFCA).
Contents
Introduction:
What the KWF is Hard at Work For,
and Not Against
5
KWF Statement on HB 5091:
Unconstitutional, Misinformed, Unnecessary
Revisiting the Bilingual Educational Policy:
Why was It Abandoned?
9
21
Appendices
A. Department Order No. 25, s. 1974
“Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual
Education”
41
B. Department Order No. 50, s. 1975
“Supplemental Implementing Guidelines for the Policy
on Bilingual Instruction at Tertiary Institutions”
44
C. MEC Order No. 22, s. 1978,
“Pilipino as Curricular Requirement in the Tertiary Level”
D. DECS Order No. 52, s. 1987
“The 1987 Policy of Bilingual Education”
E. DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987
“Implementing Guidelines for the 1987 Policy
on Bilingual Education”
61
64
45
This is what is crucial in the development of an intellectualized
language: each domain, sub-domain and sub-sub-domain (field of
specialization) has specific registers…The task of developing the
registers of the various areas of knowledge in Filipino and
educating the populations who can command and use these registers
are formidable tasks in the intellectualization of the languange.
—Bonifacio P. Sibayan
The Intellectualization of Filipino
The advice based on investigations and experience of literacy
experts is that the best way to teach a second language is by
enabling the students to master the first language to the point of
critical thinking; these skills can then be transferred to the second
language. In spite of this evidence, Philippine decision makers and
parents continue to insist on English as early as possible, even
though that hinders children’s ability to think critically in the
mother tongue or at least in the national language which is
structurally similar to the mother tongue.
—Bro. Andrew Gonzales, F.S.C.
Former Secretary of Education
The most important relationship between language and culture
that gets to the heart of what is lost when you lose a language is
that most of the culture is in the language and is expressed in the
language. Take it away from the culture, and you take away its
greetings, its curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its songs…
its wisdom, its prayers. The culture could not be expressed and
handed on in any other way. What would be left?
— Joshua Fishman
INTRODUCTION:
What the KWF is Hard at Work For,
and Not Against
by Virgilio S. Almario
This is our first publication entirely in English because the Komisyon sa Wikang
Filipino would like to address especially its friends who are more at home in
reading English text.
We also take this opportunity to define our relationship with English
as a medium of instruction and to clarify our policy that the Komisyon is not
against English. Instead, we wish to call to mind the language provisions of our
Constitution, which mandates, among other things, that “The national language
is Filipino,” and that “Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the
use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of
instruction in the educational system.” (Section 6, Article XIV; further specific
provisions are cited elsewhere in this monograph.)
In view of the KWF mandate as the sole government agency for
language, its preeminent objective has always been to develop and promote
Filipino through programs that would effectively take it through the identified
stages of language development, from standardization and nationalization to
modernization and intellectualization, while maximizing limited resources.
(These are the same stages English itself has undergone in the course of its
own history.)
At the same time, due to our multicultural and multilingual society,
KWF is tasked to look after the development and welfare of the country’s other
native languages.
Revisiting the BEP
5
Given the Constitutional provisions on language, it is a wonder why
some of our leaders and certain parties often act as if unaware or simply ignoring
them precisely, and would even work at cross-purposes with the KWF’s efforts
or undermine its achievements.
Among the current examples of the foregoing, foremost is HB
5091 introduced by Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, or “An Act to
Strengthen and Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction
in the Educational System.” Apart from distortedly blaming Filipino or the
bilingual system for the “deterioration” of English instruction, HB 5091 is, to
say the least, unconstitutional and entirely unnecessary.
At the same time, even our educators tend to misinterpret the law. In
the implementation of the K-12 and the Mother Tongue Based Multilingual
Education curriculum (MTB-MLE), for instance, the first act of some college
educators and administrators was to either wipe out or degrade Filipino and
other subjects.
That is why KWF is hard at work, again not against English, but
to restore Filipino as the primary language of instruction. We are currently
campaigning to set aright the whole educational curriculum by harmonizing
content, or establishing a common, consistent, and quality content in Filipino
as well as English. If we must exert all effort to enhance proficiency in English,
equally we must enhance proficiency and competence in Filipino. Again, it is
not KWF’s mandate to work against English; its mandate is to develop and
substantiate Filipino as the National Language.
It is the same reason we must catch up by conducting our own study
and evaluation of the bilingual policy because there was never any serious
and published effort in such direction; and to shed light on how it seemed so
casually abandoned in the advent of MTB-MLE, without ever looking at how it
might have benefitted or affected any future efforts before shifting policies.
For many advocates of Filipino, the challenge has always been the
procurement and integration of entries from the native languages into a
continually developing national language. Efforts and initiatives by the Filipinas
6
Revisiting the BEP
Institute of Translation (FIT), for example, have always been supported
by KWF. These are the twin and alternating annual conferences called 1)
Sawikaan, where proponents present and defend their proposed candidates to
“Salita ng Taon” (Word of the Year), and 2) Ambagan, where advocates from
the regions present the most viable words from the native languages which
they have identified as new entries to the national language. The results of both
Sawikaan and Ambagan, including all candidates to the Salita ng Taon, provide
new entries in the new editions of the Filipino Dictionary.
These are some of the ways the national language must be cultivated
as an efficient language of communication and instruction in the various fields
of knowledge or areas of academic discipline.
In the same direction, KWF now is actively engaged in the art and
science of translation and in training competent practitioners through an
intensive certificate course. The purpose is to serve the needs of the various
languages of the Philippines especially in the use of these languages in the
MTB-MLE curriculum, as well in the translation requirements of government
communications, business, the diaspora and diplomacy.
Simultaneously, the Komisyon is fast building its library of knowledge
under its enormous Aklat ng Bayan translation program. It has engaged leading
writers in Filipino to translate the best works in the various Philippine languages
and in English, translate world literature classics and contemporary works, while
publishing Filipino books on language research and incentivizing technical
writing in Filipino through generous awards for scientific and philosophical
treatises and doctoral theses written in Filipino.
Again, these are by way not only of making available outstanding
literary and technical works to readers in the Filipino language, but also to
make such materials available to teachers to enable them to teach not just the
Filipino language and grammar but precisely to teach subjects in other fields of
discipline such as science and math, or economics and engineering, in Filipino.
Revisiting the BEP
7
On the other hand, this is not to deny the role of English in Philippine
life and economy. There is no downplaying the fact that the burgeoning call
center, business processing, and back-office service industries have all been
made possible because many of us are proficient in English. Certainly, English
equips us to perform and compete in an English-speaking world.
Still, and especially in a multilingual and multicultural context, a nation
can earnestly talk to itself only through a language understood by all the people.
As the KWF must constantly remind itself, to function, it must keep a firm grip
on its sole mandate for the National Language, which is simply to realize its role
as a strong glue for a diverse people. In fortifying our sense of being a nation,
we can only enhance our manifold linguistic heritage, but never make it work
against our unity.
A National Language enables us to know ourselves, and internally
strengthen us as we go out into the world. A self-aware Filipino citizen, confident
about his own identity and enriched by self-knowledge—which includes
knowledge of his own culture and history, the strengths, as well weaknesses of
his own people—is the one most prepared to be a citizen of the world.
Virgilio S. Almario
Chairman
National Artist for Literature
8
Revisiting the BEP
KWF STATEMENT ON HB 5091:
Unconstitutional, Misinformed, Unnecessary
The komisyon sa wikang filipino (kwf), the sole government agency tasked with
the propagation and development of Filipino, the national and official language,
and the other native languages of the Philippines, takes a firm exception to the
proposed legislation, House Bill (HB) 5091 “An Act to Enhance the Use of
English as the Medium of Instruction in the Educational System” introduced
by Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
As the sole government agency for language, KWF has opposed
previous efforts against the National Language, not least of which was HB
8460 or the Gullas Bill of 2009, which would have made English the sole
medium of insruction from Grade 4 to high school. This measure was quashed
in the Senate. This latest attempt by Rep. Macapagal Arroyo, which is in fact a
recycling of her similar previous efforts, must be nipped in the bud, if only to
demonstrate the ultimate irrationality of her indefatigable efforts to undermine,
if not completely negate, the continuing achievements in the development of
the national and official language.
Our firm objections to HB 5091 are based on the obvious defects
of the Bill, which are that 1) It is ab initio unconstitutional; 2) It is founded
on apparently misinformed assumptions on language and education; and 3) It
is superfluous and unnecessary under the prevailing laws and national policy
on language and the medium of instruction under the national educational
system. At the same time, HB 5091 is, by point of fact, unnecessary since
the operational and existing, and actually spoken lingua franca all over the
archipelago is Filipino. And based on several historical surveys and common
experience, the lingua franca has been and is up to now, Filipino.
Revisiting the BEP
9
Allow us to explain in more detail.
Unconstitutional
First, HB 5091 is obviously unconstitutional because it runs counter
to the express language provisions of the fundamental law of the land, which
are as follows:
The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it
evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis
of existing Philippine and other languages.
Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem
appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate
and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official
communication and as language of instruction in the
educational system.1
It is evident in these provisions that Filipino is the mandated primary
medium of instruction, even if it is further provided that:
For purposes of communication and instruction, the official
languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise
provided by law, English.2
Again, it is patent in these provisions that English is the provisionary
language. On the basis, too, of the second paragraph of Section 6, the
Constitution mandates the government to “take steps to initiate and sustain
the use” of Filipino and not English. As it is, English is already the medium
of instruction for much of tertiary education, and no effort has been taken to
enhance the use of Filipino, as provided by law.
Based on the language provisions of the Constitution, HB 5091 is
patently unconstitutional, anti-Filipino, and against pedagogical principles
1
2
10
Article XIV, Section 6, 1987 Constitution.
Ibid., Article XIV, Section 7.
Revisiting the BEP
established by UNESCO3 (the importance and indispensability of the Mother
Tongue in cognitive formation), by proposing among other things that:
•
•
•
English shall be used as medium of instruction in 70% of
school subjects and institutions, including experimental/
laboratory schools and non-formal and vocational or technical
education institution4;
The use of Filipino is limited to 10% of standardized tests5;
Focus will be on the evaluation of proficiency in the English
language6.
By nature and purpose, HB 5091 is a direct assault on the indigenous
Philippine languages as well as Filipino, the operational national and official
language and lingua franca which, precisely because of the country’s
multilingual culture is recognized as a unifying agent for the diverse regional
cultures and languages. The existing National Language is also for various
reasons an empowering element for the overwhelming number of Filipino
people, especially the underprivileged, who are in many ways excluded from
both education and development because English has proven to be an obstacle
to learning and thinking.
Erroneous, Misinformed Assumptions
HB 5091 also states, as one of its guiding principles in the Explanatory
Note, that the bilingual policy introduced by the former DECS in 1974 resulted
in “the learning of the English language suffer[ing] a setback. One reason is
what linguists call language interference. Targeting the learning of two languages
(English and Pilipino [sic]) is too much for the Filipino learners, especially in
the lower grades. And if the child happens to be a non-Tagalog speaker, this
task actually means learning two foreign languages at the same time, an almost
impossible task.”
3
UNESCO, “Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002122/212270e.pdf
4
Section 4, House Bill 5091.
5
Ibid., Section 6.
6
Ibid., Section 7.
Revisiting the BEP
11
Firstly, the bilingual policy has been supplanted by MTB-MLE (Mother Tongue
Based Multilingual Education), by virtue of Department of Education Order
#74, Series of 2009, and within the new K-12 Curriculum Programme, by
virtue of RA 10533, and the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. This the
proponents of HB 5091 should know thoroughly. Among the principles of
this UNESCO researched and recommended educational policy is that children,
especially those in the lower grades, learn the most basic language skills better,
among which are cognitive skills and idea-formation, in their mother tongue,
and not in a foreign language.
The latest neurological research7 states that “young children all around
the world can and do acquire two languages simultaneously. In fact, in many
parts of the world, being bilingual is the norm rather than an exception…
[and] There is evidence that being bilingual makes the learning of a third
language easier.”
Secondly, Tagalog (the basis for the National Language) is not a
foreign language, as the proponents confusedly state. English is the foreign
language. By the basic linguistic principles of language families, Tagalog, Bisaya,
Bicol, Ilocano, Kapampangan and other Philippine languages, belong to the
huge Austronesian language family that is spoken in the Pacific region from
Madagascar to New Zealand. This is our language family, not English, which
belongs to the West Germanic and Anglo-Frisian families from halfway around
the world. In terms of grammar, usage, and language similarities, it is more
natural for a child to learn a second native language than a foreign one.
Contrariwise, if the learning of English indeed suffered a setback, it is
still, as everyone knows, the language preferred in business and government and
by our college-educated middle class, and is very much the dominant language
and the language of power in our society, as a result of which it has certainly
spawned a profitable business-processing and IT industry. That cannot result
from a “setback,” but has, in fact, excluded the masses who have difficulty
learning English and through English. We have witnessed and continue to
7
Ramirez, Naja Ferjan, “Why the baby brain can learn two languages at the
same time.” http://theconversation.com/why-the-baby-brain-can-learn-two-languages-at-the-same-time-57470
12
Revisiting the BEP
witness blatant disenfranchisement of the Filipino masses in the national
development mainly because the country’s power domains are indifferent to the
fundamental linguistic right of the people.
On the other hand, staring us from the other side of the issue is
another fallacy that must be closely considered: HB 5091 states that English
proficiency is closely linked to quality education and global competitiveness.
If that is so, then why did our Asian neighbors, such as China, South Korea,
Malaysia, and Japan, of course, economically and otherwise grow by leaps and
bounds, while using their own native tongues?
Language Policy
KWF, by mandate and function, has long been aware of the history
of policy and research on the issue of language and has taken into serious
consideration the works of leading Filipino linguistics experts especially on
the issue of intellectualization, or the use of the national language in various
domains of knowledge and power.
The late and former Secretary of Education, Bro. Andrew Gonzales,
F.S.C. said,
“For language to be cultivated intellectually, it must be used
and not just studied. If school policy makers choose not to
use the national language in certain academic domains, the
language will not be cultivated for higher cognitive activities
in that field of specialization. It is, of course, easier to reach
a stage of critical thinking in one’s native language or mother
tongue and it takes special tutoring and practice to cultivate
a second language for purposes of higher order thinking. In
the Philippines, because of the lack of financial resources,
the national language has not been sufficiently developed as
a language of intellectual discourse. English competence,
once attained, becomes a highly effective tool of intellectual
discourse and learning of the world’s knowledge. However, the
Revisiting the BEP
13
number of those in the system who reach such an advanced stage
in a second language such as English is bound to be small and
elitist.” 8 (Italics provided.)
Bro. Andrew also remarked on the misplaced intransigence of the
Philippine decision makers, which includes educational leaders, parents, and
legislators on the use of English in children and young people’s acquisition of
knowledge:
“The advice based on investigations and experience of literacy
experts is that the best way to teach a second language is by
enabling the students to master the first language to the point
of critical thinking; these skills can then be transferred to the
second language. In spite of this evidence, Philippine decision
makers and parents continue to insist on English as early as
possible, even though that hinders children’s ability to think
critically in the mother tongue or at least in the national language
which is structurally similar to the mother tongue. This partially
explains the problems of language and quality in Philippine
education today.9 (Italics provided.)
Intellectualization
The contemporary history of the national language and language
policy in the country and (excluding colonial policy) spans the decades from
Philippine Independence to the present. From the “enlightened legislation”
(according to Br. Andrew Gonzales) of the 1935 Constitution under President
Quezon to the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, the spirit of the search for and
designation of a national language has always been towards the full development
of the National Language, Filipino, based on a native language, Tagalog. In
the same manner, all the language policies of the country, from bilingual
competence (Filipino and English) to the MTB-MLE have been towards the
ultimate attainment of monolingual competence in the National Language.
8
Gonzales, Andrew and Bonifacio Sibayan, Evaluating bilingual education in
the Philippines (1974-1985).
9
Ibid.
14
Revisiting the BEP
It is towards such vision that the KWF has been rectifying and
remedying past inadequacies in the implementation of the Constitutional
provisions on language and the implementation of its mandate. It has
maximized limited resources to undertake the most basic language planning, is
continuously producing intellectual, technical, and literary materials in Filipino
through publication and translation, and conducted nationwide campaigns to
restore the use and proper position of Filipino as the National Language and
medium of instruction in public education.
Since 2013, despite its severe handicap on resources, KWF has pursued
broad-based campaigns for language standardization and nationalization, and
modernization and intellectualization. As of this writing, KWF has published
various references and manuals on language, literature, and the social and
natural sciences in the Filipino language under the program Aklat ng Bayan.
The translation of world classics and Filipino literature in English or regional
languages, plus technical and laymen’s books in the various sciences, is an
ongoing activity involving the country’s best writers who have been engaged to
undertake the translations.
The publications include Ortograpiyang Pambansa and its partner
volume KWF Manual sa Masinop na Pagsulat, supplemented by Korespondensiya
Opisyal and Mga Pangalan ng mga Tanggapan ng Pamahalaan. These are the
technical manuals the KWF uses in its roving seminar-workshop series on the
Filipino language and its usage, called the Uswag: Dangal ng Filipino (for the
Filipino teachers) and the Seminar sa Korespondensiya Opisyal (for the Filipino
government employee). In fact, there is an overwhelming positive response
from various government agencies and local government units to use the
Filipino language in providing and conducting management, services, and public
information campaigns. KWF has also intensified its interagency translation
services, undertaking the translation of important legislation, agency manuals,
brochures, articles, and other official references, including most recently the
compilation of a lexicon of meteorological terms under the title, Gabay sa
Weder Forkasting published in coordination with Philippine Atmospheric
Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA).
Revisiting the BEP
15
In pursuit of its intellectualization and modernization program for
the National Language, KWF organizes extensive and well-represented annual
national conferences on language, covering such topics as peace in Mindanao
(held in Bukidnon), translation (Iloilo), language planning (Pangasinan),
environmental safety (Legazpi), and Filipino as the language of knowledge
(Baguio City), where language practitioners talked and demonstrated the use of
Filipino in teaching the sciences such as math, economics, banking, engineering,
and physics.
From these national language congresses emerged important
resolutions promulgated by the participants, as follows:
•
In the National Congress on the Intellectualization of the Filipino
Language, held last 1-5 August 2016, the more than 500 participants
from various parts of the country passed Kapasiyahan Blg. (Resolution
No.) 2016-1 recommending to all academic institutions and agencies
of the government to use Filipino as medium of instruction in various
disciplines. (A copy of which is attached hereto.)
•
In the National Summit on the Language of Peace, the very select
representatives of numerous ethnic groupings of the Philippines
(composed of Datus, Bae, Maaram, binukot, youth, teachers,
Indigenous Peoples’ Mandated Representatives, or IPMR, local
officials, etc. representing the more than 150 participants) passed
Kapasiyahan Blg. (Resolution No.) 2014-1 recommending “the
continued use of Filipino and native languages, and for this to be the
policy from this day on in order for government to respond to the
needs and aspirations of the people and for it to render effective and
speedy public service.”
Lingua Franca
Developing, enriching, and preserving of the Filipino language and
the native languages of the Philippines, as is the task of the KWF, is such a
complex one that it cannot be easily divorced from the culture which speaks it.
Our culture has been so encrusted with American elements such as the English
16
Revisiting the BEP
language itself, rock-and-roll, crass commercialism and almost insatiable
consumerism. We can speak English, of course, as our educated middle and
elite classes do rather so quaintly and fluently with lots of effort. But at heart,
if we strip ourselves of our Americanisms and Filipino Englishisms, and even
if we might be able to remotely translate malasakit, pakikipagkapuwa, and
kagandahang-loob into their English equivalents, we still pronounce them in
their original form: not with an American twang but from the authentic depths
of our Filipino souls.
And that language is what the majority of our people speak together
with their native regional languages. And this continually evolving lingua
franca is called Filipino. Not really the Taglish as our veteran linguistics expert
Bonifacio Sibayan described in one of his older essays, but the Filipino that is
continually being enriched by entries from the native or regional languages, or
the different accents they speak it within their provinces, regions, residences,
domains of life, knowledge, and power.
Going by historical surveys, in the national censuses made from 1939
to 1980, the speakers of the national language increased from 4,068,565 to
12,019,139, or from 25.4% to 44.4% of the entire population of the Philippines.
In 1989, a survey conducted by the Ateneo de Manila University further showed
that 92% understood Tagalog, the basis of the Filipino language, 83% could
speak it, 88% could read, and 81% could write in it.
As early as 1990, the University of the Philippines Integrated
School (UPIS) undertook a six-year experiment using Filipino as language of
instruction for all subjects (apart from English) from the elementary grades to
high school. Their initial survey from 1995-1996 of 117 UPIS students from
Grade 3 to 6 and interviews with 20 teachers of different subjects revealed the
following results:
For students: 1) 85% preferred Filipino as language of instruction;
2) 83% said they understood Filipino more than English; and 3) only 11%
preferred that Mathematics by be taught in English and 13% preferred that
Science be taught in English.
Revisiting the BEP
17
For teachers: 1) 90% used Filipino as language of instruction; 2) 40%
said students recited more frequently while using Filipino; 3) 45% said the
children more quickly expressed their ideas; 4) 50% said the students learned
faster and understood their lessons; 5) only 5% noticed a lower proficiency
in the use of English; and 6) 80% requested that more textbooks and other
reading materials be available in Filipino.
While the statistics on lingua franca demonstrate the proliferation
of Filipino as the national and official language throughout the archipelago,
the process of intellectualization and modernization remains a challenge for
the country’s language planners, policy makers, and the KWF. “The task of
developing the registers of the various areas of knowledge in Filipino,” according
to Bonifacio Sibayan, “and educating the populations who can command and
use these registers are formidable tasks.”10
Still, going by KWF’s more recent experience in its annual congresses
on language and its interaction with various sectors, such tasks are no longer so
“formidable” as both institutional and individual initiatives have ventured out
into the vast and irregular landscape of intellectualization. Several university
professors and a smattering of university programs continue to train instructors
on “technical” Filipino, as they penetrate the subdomains of economics,
business, and math.
The puzzle of legislating for English
With these developments hand-in-hand with a burgeoning call center,
business processing, and back-office service industries, it is certainly a puzzle
why our legislators are so scared of “losing English.” Our American colonizers
and our present power structure make sure that we cannot give up English that
easy. What we should be afraid of, on the other hand, is losing our own native
and regional languages, and our national language. As the American expert on
socio-linguistics, language planning and bilingual education, Joshua Fishman,
said:
10
18
Sibayan, Bonifacio, The Intellectualization of the Filipino.
Revisiting the BEP
The most important relationship between language and culture
that gets to the heart of what is lost when you lose a language
is that most of the culture is in the language and is expressed
in the language. Take it away from the culture, and you take
away its greetings, its curses, its praises, its laws, its literature, its
songs, its riddles, its proverbs, its cures, its wisdom, its prayers.
The culture could not be expressed and handed on in any
other way. What would be left? When you are talking about
the language, most of what you are talking about is the culture.
That is, you are losing all those things that essentially are the
way of life, the way of thought, the way of valuing, and the
human reality that you are talking about.11
How to communicate with the nation at large then? Or how does the
nation communicate with itself with its diversity of languages and cultures?
There is always the preferred English of government, business, and the middle
class. But there is also the modernizing Filipino that enables our youth to grasp
or form clearer ideas, teach them critical or analytical thinking in a more familiar
language, and more importantly, make them stronger and more capable citizens,
consumers, and functioning participants in the economy. In other words, a
familiar language more effectively prepares them to participate in the global
arena.
How a nation communicates with itself can only be addressed by
a language understood by everybody, even in a multilingual and multicultural
context. As KWF has always insisted, it can only fulfill its mandate by keeping
in sight the unifying value of the Filipino national language. At the same time,
our sense of nation must acknowledge, as well as enrich and enhance, our
diverse linguistic heritage. We must celebrate diversity but we must not use it as
an excuse for disunity.
And again, this complicated task cannot be attained, nor its
accompanying issues resolved, by a proposed bill that insists on “strengthening
and enhancing” a foreign language like English as the medium of instruction
while being based on unconstitutional, fallacious, and unscientific grounds.
11
Fishman, Joshua, “What do you lose when you lose your language?” in Stabilizing Indigenous Languages, p. 81.
Revisiting the BEP
19
As it is, not only is HB 5091 unconstitutional and founded on
erroneous assumptions, but looking at the implementation and progress of
MTB-MLE, made operational by Department of Education Order #74, Series
of 2009, and within the new K-12 Curriculum Programme, under RA 10533,
and the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, the proposed bill is entirely
superfluous and unnecessary.
20
Revisiting the BEP
REVISITING THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION POLICY:
Why Was It Abandoned?
by Purificacion G. Delima, PhD
pgdelima@yahoo.com
Recent moves against the constitutionally mandated National Language call
for a closer re-inspection of language policies past and present. Specifically,
Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s proposed House Bill No. 5091, titled “An Act
to Strengthen and Enhance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction
(MOI) in the Educational System,” lamely cites the old Bilingual Education
Policy (BEP) as the reason for what she describes as “a setback” that “the
learning of the English language [has] suffered.” As the claim presents no proof
from the circumstances of the BEP itself, it is but fair to revisit the BEP and
re-examine all its salient features, including the evaluation results conducted by
the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, with Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew
Gonzalez, FSC, co-directing the Bilingual Education Policy Evaluation (BEPE)
in 1985—after eleven years of implementation of the language policy.
The 1974 Bilingual Education Policy
The BEP was the initiative of then National Board of Education (NBE),
contained in NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s. 1973, upon the recommendation
of a Technical Committee. This in response to a growing sentiment for a
“nationalistic education” from among student and social activists by installing
Pilipino as the MOI in the school system (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 330).
Toward this initiative the Education Department took a more definitive step by
issuing Department Order No. 25, s. 1974, entitled “Implementing Guidelines
Revisiting the BEP
21
for the Policy on Bilingual Education.” (Cf. Appendix “A”) The Department
Order clearly defined the goal of bilingualism in the schools, that is, “to develop
a bilingual nation competent in the use of both English and Pilipino.” It was
likewise very clear as to the concrete actions to take to implement the policy, the
most important of which follow:
b. The use of English and Pilipino as media of instruction shall begin in Grade I in all schools.
c. English and Pilipino shall be taught as language subjects in all grades in the elementary and secondary schools to achieve the goal of bilingualism.
d. Pilipino shall be used as medium of instruction in the
following subject areas: social studies,/social science,
character education, work education, health education
and physical education.
Primary: School year 1978-79
Intermediate: School year 1979-80
First and second year high school: School year 1980-81
Third and Fourth year high school: School year 1981-82
The use of English in all other subjects/courses in the elementary and secondary levels shall likewise be mandatory.
(Gonzalez and Sibayan (eds.) 1988, 153)
Based on the above declared guidelines, the attainment of the goal
of the BEP was for a ten-year period from 1974 until 1984. Accompanying the
stipulated details of the policy were the following strategies:
2. In-service training programs for the development of teachers’
competence in the use of Pilipino as medium of instruction
shall be organized on the national, regional, and local levels
under the direction of the appropriate personnel of the
Department of Education and Culture and its agencies and instrumentalities with the cooperation of teachers’
colleges and universities.
22
Revisiting the BEP
3. All schools/school divisions shall prepare long range plans for teacher in-service training and materials acquisition and/or preparation.
4. Tertiary institutions (collegiate and graduate levels) are given discretion to develop their own schedules of implementation, provided that by the school year 1984,
all graduates of tertiary curricula should be able to pass examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of
their professions.
(Ibid.)
Under Department Order No. 25, the bilingual schemes allocates 80% of
the subjects in the curriculum to Filipino MOI, and the remaining 20% to English
MOI. Regional languanges would continue to function as auxiliary languanges.
After a decade from 1974, the bilingual policy was expected to manifest in the skills
of teriary level graduates “to pass examinations in Eng;ish AND/OR (emphasis
mine) Pilipino for the practice of their professions.” However not until 1985 that
the BEP impact wouldbe evaluated and the results presented to re-direct the further
impelementation of the language policy revised according to the findings of the BEPE.
The Bilingual Education Policy Evaluation (BEPE)
How did the BEP impact on the learning process of Filipino students
after eleven years of implementation?
Working with the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP) in 1985,
one year beyond its target 1984 timetable, the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sports (MECS) aimed at finding the answer to the question. Directed by Andrew
Gonzalez and Bonifacio P. Sibayan of LSP, the BEPE utilized a multi-dimensional
model of evaluation consisting of “achievement test data and perception data
from key members of various sectors of the Philippine national community…
in four separate though related studies” (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 331).
Sample study participants included teachers and students of exit grade levels—
Grade 4, Grade 6 and Fourth Year—in English and Pilipino language subjects,
Revisiting the BEP
23
and in Mathematics and Science, and Social Studies content subjects. In addition,
parents, administrators, key officials of government and non-government agencies,
and officers of scholarly societies were identified.
To achieve a more conclusive outcome, other variables were included.
Length of exposure to bilingual schooling was assigned as an independent
variable; scores in language and content subjects and anchorage factors were
treated as dependent variables; and type of community of students, teacher
factors and school factors were included as intervening variables. Study methods
and instruments used were achievement tests, interviews, classroom visitations,
proficiency tests, five-point attitudinal scales, questionnaires and ocular inspections
of school sites and facilities (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988).
For the study participants, purposive sampling was used as dictated by
the objective of the study, and stratified according to ethno-linguistic groupings
and their type of community. Though the scale of the study was national, the
Evaluation Team claimed that a representative sample was sufficient for a more indepth data analysis, size being unnecessary for purpose. The final six (6) community
types identified included the: 1) the National Capital Region, (2) Tagalog (closed
community, not a melting pot), (3) Tagalog (open community, a melting pot),
(4) Non-Tagalog (closed community, not a melting pot), (5) Non-Tagalog (open
community, melting pot), and, (6) Others. One hundred thirty six (136) schools
were identified all over the country, with 662 classrooms visited ; 568 teachers of
various ages tested; learners observed included Grade 4 : 2,251, Grade 6: 2,328,
and Grade 10: 2,592. Because of unequal numbers, and considering the whole
country context, the samples had to be weighted for statistically valid comparative
procedures based on the actual proportion of the various subgroups represented
in the data (Ibid.).
Major Findings
In 1988, Gonzalez and Sibayan reported the results of the
multidimensional BEPE, along with three other separate but related studies on
“the implementation of the BEP at the tertiary level, the level of awareness of the
policy among government and non-government organizations and among parents,
and the contributions of the scholarly societies both language oriented and non-
24
Revisiting the BEP
language oriented to the implementation of the policy” (Ibid, p. 3). To say that
the BEP made impact on the educational system, the evaluation needed to show
significant data from the dependent variables—achievement test and perception
from key stakeholders of the language program policy coming from various
sectors. No later did the Evaluation Team declare that the bilingual education
scheme was a fiasco. Unexpected results and findings summarized in the same
publication provided the enlightenment.
The differentiated use of the two languages—Pilipino and English—in
the content subjects, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies, did not show impact
on academic achievement. Rather, socio-economic status and the proficiency of
their teachers in their respective subjects did. Likewise, the type of community,
not the ethno-linguistic affiliation, created the impact on the achievement data of
the learners. Participants from the urban Metro Manila, and those coming from
an open community even elsewhere in the country, performed better than their
counterparts. Meanwhile, the other intervening variable, length of exposure to the
language policy, given the eleven years of policy implementation, was not found a
significant predictor of student success (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996). Instead,
statistics showed significant evidence of a deteriorating educational system.
From interviews, an interesting finding was the acceptance of the
evaluation participants to use English and Pilipino as instructional media in
content subjects, but refused to equate medium of instruction with nationalism.
Nationalism aside, they opined, Pilipino as a medium of instruction was still
a challenge to teachers especially in the secondary and tertiary levels, where
specialized terminologies prevailed (Ibid.)
According to Gonzalez (Ibid.), the same BEPE revealed “interesting
and unexpected findings”, to wit:
(1) The BEP created a widening gap between Tagalogs and non-Tagalogs in
the educational system. “The formula for success in Philippine education
is to be a Tagalog living in Metro Manila, which is highly urbanized, and
BEP, p. 5 studying in a private school considered excellent” (Ibid., p. 333);
(2) Learning in Pilipino benefited from teachers’ use and knowledge of, and
training in English, including other resources, which were in English, used
in the classroom;
Revisiting the BEP
25
(3) Pilipino language skills transferred to English increasingly, and peaked
in Grade 6, i.e., a strong evidence of a genuine developing bilingualism;
(4) Even non-Tagalogs, e.g., Surigao-Cebuanos (surprisingly second) and
Pangasinenses (third), were cited as best achievers in Pilipino subject;
(5) Good schools mostly in Metro Manila and urban areas performed
excellent job in teaching English and Pilipino;
(6) Pilipino had been accepted as the symbol for unity and national identity,
and as a national language; however, English was acknowledged to be
necessary for economic reasons alongside Pilipino both as instructional
media;
(7) The BEP implementation required a concerted effort of various groups
from the government and non-government organizations, including
professional testing and certifying agencies and likewise language
organizations;
(8) Parents put high hopes on the positive impact of the bilingual policy,
even as while all other groups, governmental and non-governmental alike,
saw the “deterioration in English competence”;
(9) The Filipino community attributed the achievement gap in English and
Pilipino more to the post-war conditions of schools and the educational
system, in general, and not to the implemented language policy;
(10) Pilipino was foreseen to be the scholarly discourse in the near future,
except not exclusively in the legal domain;
(11) Success and failure in learning in the Philippines were seen as
dependent on socio-economic status and competence of schools and their
faculty, more than nationalism and country aspirations of the citizens; and,
26
Revisiting the BEP
(12) The development and intellectualization of Pilipino as the language of
scholarly discourse would more appropriately happen, not at the bottom of
the educational ladder, but at the tertiary level, “where a creative minority
of scholars who are both linguistically versatile and knowledgeable in their
fields” can pioneer work in translation and research in Pilipino.
Findings of Commissioned Studies
Triangulating empirical data elicited from the main evaluation study
by Gonzalez and Sibayan were three other commissioned individual studies that
investigated BEP impact from three sectors, namely, tertiary level schools, parents
and government and non-government agencies, and scholarly societies. Each study
significantly contributed to the creation of a holistic picture for the evaluation
scheme.
The BEP at the Tertiary Level. Lorna Z. Segovia of the Research
Center of then Philippine Normal College supervised the study that looked into
the implementation of the BEP at the tertiary level. Using purposive random
sampling, the survey utilized ten (10) ethno-linguistic groups consisting of school
administrators, faculty members and student leaders from 94 tertiary schools,
proportionately picked from state universities and private schools. Instruments
used were interview guides and documentary analysis guides to elicit the intended
data.
In her report, the need for the BEP in the tertiary level “was not a
priority… considering that only slightly more than one third of the schools in this
study implemented it” ( Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988, 97). For those schools that
implemented the BEP, she further stated that there was a lack of a systematized
implementation plan resulting in a mere “perfunctory compliance with the MECS
order” (Ibid.). Opinions and attitudes of the survey participants who were
administrators, faculty members and students showed consensus that Pilipino was
a symbol of unity and national identity, and using it as medium of instruction to
symbolize nationalism need not be a problem.
Revisiting the BEP
27
Interestingly, findings further showed that the student participants were
more optimistic about the positive outcome of the BEP in future, including the
target goal of the language policy to develop “graduates of tertiary curricula…
able to pass examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their
professions” as stipulated in the implementing guidelines of Department Order
No. 25.
Level of Awareness of the BEP among Parents and among
Government (GOs) and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). The
study that looked into the perceptions of parents and GO and NGO groups
was facilitated by Judy Carol Sevilla of the Research Center of De La Salle
University. Using the assumption held by the Evaluation Team that there existed
certain relationships between and among the variables stipulated, the study further
investigated on the influence of such intervening variables as socio-economic
influence (SES), regional background and organizational membership, on parents’
perceptions and attitudes. For leaders of GOs and NGOs, the variables investigated
were their language background, administrative practices and policies within their
organizations and the service targets of their organizations. Data gathering used
questionnaire for parents in identified tertiary level schools and face-to-face semistructured interview for high-level officers of GOs and NGOs.
On the level of awareness, data showed that both participants’ groups
were aware of the existence of the bilingual policy and the separate use of English
and Pilipino. However, the GO and the NGO groups claimed varying levels of
awareness of parents according to such factors as level of education, involvement
in education-related occupations and with children whose schools observe the
bilingual policy. A consistent finding showed that parents from Metro Manila had
the highest level of awareness and full knowledge of the bilingual education policy.
This observation though was more attributed to the “lack of a vigorous, effective
information campaign regarding the existence and provisions of BEP” (Gonzalez
and Sibayan 1988, 110), especially in the non-Tagalog areas.
On the variables perception and attitudes toward the BEP, the three
groups revealed differing results. The parents group acknowledged the improved
proficiency of their children’s use of both Pilipino and English. They further noted
that their children in the elementary and secondary had better skills in Pilipino than
they had at the same age. This observation though could not be easily attributed
28
Revisiting the BEP
to the bilingual education policy, according to their responses, in view of the lack
of a thorough knowledge on the policy and the perceived poor implementation of
the policy itself.
Meanwhile, there was a perceived deterioration in the learners’ use of
English, but both parents’ group and GO and NGO groups saw this trend as
possibly the result of a deteriorating educational system on the whole, particularly
the usual twin lack of effective teachers and instructional materials in schools. The
GO group had an added perception that, more than the policy itself, the learners’
socio-economic status had a strong influence on English learners’ competence.
They believed that “better-off families send their children to schools with higher
standards in English skills…and have more opportunities to use English in their
daily life” (Ibid., p. 121). Saying that the BEP generally failed in its purpose,
the NGO group cited additional variables such as the “use of regional dialects
inside and outside the classroom, limited opportunities for speaking Pilipino in the
non-Tagalog regions, influence of media, and students’ difficulties in studying two
(instead of just one) languages” (Ibid., p. 123). On the other hand, the issue on
the national language being needed to develop Filipino identity was perceived to
be false. Majority of participants believed that Filipinos could still be “nationalistic
even without speaking Filipino” (Ibid.).
While the Sevilla study revealed data that did not indicate a positive
outcome of the BEP from the perceptions and attitudes of parents, GOs and
NGOs, there was optimism attached to the BEP program for its continued
implementation to achieve its goal of bilingual competence for the nation. The
report said that the greater part of the country “…has come to the point of
accepting Pilipino as the Filipino’s linguistic symbol of unity and identity” and
that the respondents “foresee that the next ten years will see its (Pilipino) domains
expanding and its increasing use even in classrooms.”
However, the report noted the discouraging “insouciance manifested by
the Philippine Regulations Commission and the Civil Service Commission,” evident
in the continued use of English in both the documentation and communication
processes in government offices, including “the lack of provisions for translation
of documents into Pilipino .” The report thus pointed to the “agencies and the
sectors needing systematic and deliberate language engineering” efforts for the
success of the BEP (Ibid., p. 130).
Revisiting the BEP
29
Contributions of Scholarly Societies to the Implementation of the
BEP. In a second evaluation study, Lorna Segovia investigated the contributions
of scholarly societies to language-related issues and needs of the country. Using
interview schedule as instrument, it listed 70 scholarly organizations, 63 with
addresses in Metro Manila and 7 in the provinces. From the list, only 48 societies,
or 69% were interviewed, with just one (1) coming from the province. The
scholarly groups differed in their disciplinal concerns and groups’ services. Of the
48 societies, 10 were language groups (LGs) concerned with the promotion and
development of Pilipino as national language, and 38 were non-language groups
(NLGs) with varying concerns. Both groups, however, service students, teachers
and professionals, with a few catering to the grassroots population.
Following their own advocacies, both the LGs and the NLGs had their
own contributions to the BEP one way or another. Through teacher trainings,
seminar-workshops and publications, they were able to put into their agenda the
development of Pilipino and English. For Pilipino, both groups were optimistic of
its continued expanding domains in Philippine society and as a unifying symbol.
For English, while both groups recognized its function “for international relations
and wider communication and for science and technology,” there was also the
perception of its “diminishing role in Philippine life.” Nonetheless, both groups
perceived the need for “English AND Pilipino for functioning effectively in
Philippine society even at the highest levels” (Ibid., p. 142).
Implications and Insights
Once installed as the national language in 1936, Tagalog/Pilipino
was destined to flourish to be the national lingua franca of the country. While
legitimation of a Philippine national language in the 1935 Constitution arose from
a clamor for national identity and solidarity, its spread all over the country grew
out of necessity. At the onset of their newfound freedom, there was no stopping
the Filipino people from widening their local experience around the country using
an intelligible linguistic expression. Individual and national self-improvement and
self-fulfillment surpassed isolated pockets of ethnic disagreements and selfish
interests.
30
Revisiting the BEP
Even prior to the 1974 BEP, the Filipino bilingual experience was a
reality. Outside the Tagalog areas, the Filipino was naturally a bilingual, speaking
one ethnic language and Pilipino. The Filipino trilingual including English in
their linguistic repertoire belonged to a very limited elite population. Numerous
surveys from 1937 to 1973 provided empirical evidence to this trend. Pilipino
usage was found conspicuously prevalent not only in the school system but already
in the “mass media, other inter-ethnic communications and everyday business
transactions” among “4,064,000 or 25.4% of the total population of 16 million
in the 1939 census 29,998,000 or 77% of the population six years old and over
(38, 925,000) in the 1980 census count” (Gonzalez 1990 in Bautista 1996, 329).
This increasing dominance of Pilipino (renamed later as Filipino in the 1987
Constitution) in many domains, in both oral and written forms, was farther
affirmed in more recent surveys by Sibayan and Segovia (1982, in Gonzalez 1990)
and by the Commission on the Filipino Language.
Hence, the BEP was simply enhancing this trend of nationalization
toward a genuine sovereign status for the Filipino nation. This political and social
direction was to have pursued a logical and nationalist recourse with no turning
back. The primary caretakers of a truly democratic and nationalistic education
goal, following the inspiration of our wartime heroes
and national language leaders, would have been the Philippine government and its
relevant agencies, like the education department, local government agencies and
civil service institutions.
Without belittling government efforts in the implemented BEP, it
was the political will, unperturbed by any outside selfish interests, that was
conspicuously lacking. The Philippine bilingual policy was not without a detailed
and determinate vision and plan to achieve its goal. Thus, the following discussion
of the supplemental actions taken by the education department needs inclusion in
this paper.
Supplemental Department Orders. Then Education Secretary
Juan L. Manuel, envisioned a positive outcome of the BEP. In addition to the
Department Order No. 75, s. 1974, defining the primary implementing guidelines
for the BEP, two other supplemental Department Orders—DO No. 50, s. 1975
(Cf. Appendix “B”), entitled “Supplemental Implementing Guidelines for the
Revisiting the BEP
31
Policy on Bilingual Instruction at Tertiary Institutions” and MEC Order No. 22,
s. 1978 (Cf. Appendix “C”), entitled “Pilipino as Curriculum Requirement in the
Tertiary Level”—were issued to emphatically repeat the goal of the BEP and to
ensure the proper implementation of Pilipino as MOI and language subject in
tertiary education, respectively.
Department Order No. 50 clearly stated that,
Courses in English and Pilipino shall be offered in tertiary
institutions as part of appropriate curricula pursuant to th
policy of bilingual education; furthermore by school year 1984
all graduates of tertiary institutions should be able to pass
examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their
professions.”
(Ibid., Annex B, p. 154)
For its goal of a nationalistic education, the National Board of
Education saw the Department of Education at the forefront of the success of
the language policy. Toward this end, no less than the Ministry of Education and
Culture itself in MEC Order No. 22 required a “definite program of instruction
for Pilipino in the Tertiary Level”; stipulated a six (6) units requirement of Pilipino
in all curricular programs, with 12 units required in Teacher Education curricula;
and specified the course descriptions of two (2) Pilipino courses for the six units
program requirement along with their syllabi content “as patterns and/or reference
for construction of modified syllabi by the instructors of the subjects.” The
Order required the teaching of Pilipino separately as a language course (Pilipino I
– Sining ng Pakikipagtalastasan), and as a literature course (Pilipino II – Panitikang
Pilipino: Pahapyaw na Kasaysayan at mga Piling Katha).
Additionally, the Order assured the continued competence in the use
of Pilipino as MOI and subject both in all school levels by stipulating “a system
of using Pilipino in appropriate tertiary level subjects/courses” in two Phases:
Phase I—Institutions in Tagalog areas ready to use Pilipino as MOI shall start in
school year 1979-1980; all other institutions in non-Tagalog areas shall prepare a
transition phase within the period 1979-1982; Phase II—“By school year 19821983, Pilipino shall be used as medium of instruction in all schools, colleges, and
universities in the following tertiary courses/subjects:
32
Revisiting the BEP
1.) Philippine History and Government with the New Constitution
and Public Service (integrated)
2) Rizal’s Life and Works
3) Sociology
4) Economics with Taxation and Land Reform, Cooperative and
Consumer Education
5) Current Issues
6) Health Education, Population Education (including Family
Planning)
7) Physical Education
8) Home Economics (including Nutrition)
9) Practical Arts
10) General Psychology
11) Ethics
12) Other appropriate subjects (emphasis mine)
(Ibid., p. 156)
The same MEC Order stipulated the instruction to institute in-service
training programs and the production of appropriate teaching materials organized
at the national and regional levels under the “direction of the proper agencies of
the Ministry of Education and Culture…” such that “By school year 1980-1981,
all students graduating from higher education courses shall have completed as least
six (6) units in Pilipino” (Ibid.).
Needless to say, in 1973-1974 the National Board of Education and the
Department of Education/Ministry of Education and Culture had effectively laid
down the ground works for the creation of an orderly and operational support
system for a truly nationalistic education to address the perceived “mis-education”
as a result of the use of English as the medium of instruction, a continuation,
in their eyes, of the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the United States of
America” (Gonzalez 1990, in Bautista 1996, 330). Yet this nationalist vision for
the whole country would persist even beyond the Martial Rule period. For in
the succeeding 1987 Philippine Constitution , the national and official language
“Pilipino” in the 1973 Constitution would be declared and renamed “Filipino” and
used “for purposes of communication and instruction.
Revisiting the BEP
33
The 1987 BEP. Without a doubt it was the 1987 Constitution that
put to rest “ the battle for the selection of the basis of the national language”
(Gonzalez 1990 in Bautista 1996, 210). This Constitution definitively stated in
Section 6, Article XIV, to wit:
The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves,
it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing
Philippine and other languages.
Subject to provisions of law as the Congress may deem appropriate,the
Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino
as a medium of official communication and as a language of instruction
in the educational system.
(Ibid., p. 228)
Given this legal mandate, the Government, through the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued DECS Order No. 52, s. 1987
(Cf. Appendix “D”), entitled “The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education.” This
policy sustained the 1974 BEP, but picked up from the insightful results of the
1985 evaluation studies. This toward a more fine-tuned implementation plan
of the language policy henceforth. Subsequently, DECS Order No. 54, s. 1987
(Cf. Appendix “E”), entitled “Implementing Guidelines for the 1987 Policy on
Bilingual Education” was released to lead the way.
In DECS Order No. 52, Sec. 2.b (2-4), the 1987 BEP was clear in its
goals for the Filipino language, namely, among others:
2.b. (2) the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy;
(3) the development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national
unity and identity;
(4) the cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of
scholarly discourse, that is to say, its continuing
intellectualization.
(Gonzalez and Sibayan, 1988, 166)
Further, the policy stipulated in 2.b (5) “the maintenance of English as
an international language for the Philippines and as a non-exclusive language
of science and technology” (emphasis mine). On hindsight, this provision would
34
Revisiting the BEP
be the realization of MEC Order No. 22 that Pilipino should be used as medium
of instruction also in “Other appropriate subjects” in all levels. Yet unfortunately,
in DECS Order No. 54 that contained the implementing guidelines of the 1987
BEP, this non-exclusivity condition for the use of English was nowhere stipulated,
either wittingly or otherwise.
In a later analysis of the BEP Philippine experience, Gonzalez himself
acknowledged that the 1987 BEP would lead to “opening the door in the future
to the use of Filipino not only for social science subjects but also for mathematics
and the natural sciences …and put the burden of intellectualization and cultivation
on the universities by enjoining them to come up with creative programs for this
purpose” (Gonzalez 1990 in Bautista 1996, 233). The Order stated that:
g. Tertiary level institutions shall lead in the continuing intellectualization of Filipino. The program of intellectualization, however, shall also be pursued in both the elementary and secondary levels.
(Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988, 167)
DECS Order No. 54 detailed the direction for a complete nationalistic
education, to include instructions for teaching content subjects, materials and
syllabi preparation, teacher training, institutional cooperation and coordination,
incentive schemes and other support mechanisms. It stated, “For all subjects to be
taught in Filipino, the development of teaching and reference materials as well as
training of teachers to teach in Filipino shall be funded” (Ibid., p. 168).
To oversee all these policy requirements, the Order ensured the creation
of a Bilingual Education Committee consisting of several institutional bodies and
officials, namely:
1. The Bureau Directors (Elementary, Secondary, Tertiary)
2. The Chairperson of the National Language Commission (Institute of Philippine Languages)
3. Representatives from the Language Education Sector and
Language Societies
(Ibid., p. 169)
Revisiting the BEP
35
Serving for an initial period of three years, but renewable at the option
of the Department Secretary, the Bilingual Education Committee was tasked to
disseminate information on the language policy to different constituents, submit
regular annual reports, compile baseline data on language achievements, and
periodically conduct research evaluation studies on the policy implementation for
policy revisions, if necessary. At this juncture, it is important to note that the Order
required the Committee “to undertake a summative evaluation after ten years of
implementation (1987-1997),” a task that the Department of Education today has
yet to fulfill well after more or less two decades from the renewed implementation
of the language policy in 1987, and before a new language policy—the Mother
Tongue Based-Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)—was institutionalized in
2009.
Insights into the BEP Impasse. Calling it precisely as “Policy
reformulation”, Gonzalez, wittingly or unwittingly, found the two language
policies issued in 1974 and reformulated in 1987 as “essentially the same” (1990
in Bautista 1996, p. 336). Admittedly, Gonzalez considered the national evaluation
of the 1974 language policy a truly daunting task. This because the task involved
numerous and varied factors that could impact on the success or failure of the
implementation scheme. Thus, he made sure that a “multi-dimensional model”
was used “to make sure all relevant and significant factors impacting on results
are taken into account” (Ibid.). Direct program participants were measured.
Views, perceptions, attitudes, behaviors including thoughts and aspirations of
indirect stakeholders were elicited in various contexts. Independent variables, such
as socio-economic status, residence and community locations/type/nature were
likewise accounted for to obtain a total picture of the learning process.. All these,
Gonzalez realized, “cannot be done from the comforts of one’s office based on
test results administered by evaluators in the field” (Ibid., p. 337). Conclusions and
generalizations could be realized through classroom visitations, direct observations
and classroom observations that would yield empirical data.
Given all the aforementioned considerations, the 1987 BEP and
its implementing guidelines were deliberately formulated, promulgated and
disseminated in series of various workshops and consultations at the national,
regional and local levels. Prospectively, had the 1987 BEP received the proper
management direction and power-steering, the goals set forth by both DECS
Order Nos. 52 and 54 enumerated above for Filipino as language subject and MOI
in all levels, would have been systematically attained.
36
Revisiting the BEP
Thus, it must be told, that, absent in the 1974 policy but clearly stipulated
in the reformulated 1987 BEP, were the following: (1) clearly cited BEP goals for
Filipino as a language of literacy, as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity
and as a language of scholarly discourse; (2) the continuing intellectualization
of Filipino in all levels; (3) assured government funding support for materials
production, in-service training, compensatory and enrichment program for nonTagalogs, development of a suitable and standardized Filipino for classroom use
and the development of appropriate evaluative instruments; (4) the full listing of
11 courses/subjects in all levels, including a 12th “Other appropriate subjects”
catch-all category, for which Filipino would be the MOI; (5) English “as a nonexclusive language of science and technology”; and, (6) the creation of a Bilingual
Education Committee tasked to monitor implementation, report and facilitate
evaluative mechanisms over the next 10-year implementation period.
Given all of the above salient features of the 1987 BEP and its
implementing guidelines, and even early on in the 1974 BEP, it can be said
using a cliché, that all roads were to lead to the Filipinization of the educational
system—an envisioned outcome consistent with the national development goals
of the government and the National Board of Education Resolution No. 73-7.
Purportedly, this would fulfill the aspiration of the Filipino nation “to have its
citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to perform their functions and
duties as Filipino citizens and in English in order to meet the needs of the country
in the community of nations” (Ibid., p. 166).
Yet this nationalist vision was not meant to be.
After close to five decades now from the time the bilingual policy was
issued in 1974, up until the new MTB-MLE language policy has taken its place, the
educational system continues to yield a “mis-education” for the Filipino youth.
Like the problems that plagued the 1974 BEP as revealed by the Gonzalez and
Sibayan evaluation studies, the 1987 BEP suffered the same impasse. Without
mentioning the systemic weaknesses of unfulfilled support mechanisms, such as
half-hearted teacher trainings, ill-revised curriculum plans, ill-prepared teaching
techniques and instructional materials, the Bilingual Education Committee was
nowhere to be found, if at all it existed and functioned to undertake primarily the
monitoring of the implementation plan. Neither were the tertiary institutions and
other governmental agencies tasked to directly implement the development and
intellectualization of Filipino worked hard core to achieve it.
Revisiting the BEP
37
Four years later the continuing sad plight of a deteriorating Philippine
education would be confirmed by an 11-month study reported by the Congressional
Commission on Education to Review and Assess Philippine Education (or,
EDCOM). It noted that similar problems prevailed since the Monroe Survey of
1925 up until the EDCOM survey in 1991 for over 65 years. Among its findings,
the bilingual policy was found as “distressing the quality of learning.” Expectedly,
it recommended “flexibility in the use of the Bilingual Policy in the elementary
grades” and instructed teachers to use the dominant language of the community
(https://www.slideshare.net).
Relatedly, it is but fair to mention that only the University of the
Philippines System (UPS) took the challenge of revolutionizing its language
policy during this period from 1974 to date. Within a bilingual framework but
foregrounding a true nationalistic education, UPS encouraged liberally the use
of Filipino as MOI in teaching, research and extension work with accompanying
awards and incentives, and institutionalized relevant Filipino programs and courses
for minor or major offerings. Translation, too, was highly encouraged, especially
for publication purposes. Meantime, English was to remain as an international
language, used in English courses and in graduate programs, though not as an
exclusive MOI. Regional languages were likewise taught, and used in research and
creative writing (Bautista 1995).
And so it came to pass. The longest reigning Philippine language
policy—the Bilingual Education Policy (1974-2008), obviously well-intentioned,
well-crafted and conceptualized, was doomed from the start—out of neglect,
indifference, discordant actions, and/or total weak and indecisive management of
the whole educational system.
At the same time, the whole foregoing history of the failure of the BEP
of 1974-2008 only serves to underscore the fact that the development Filipino as
primary and ultimate MOI had suffered more from the said failures. The teaching
and learning of English, on the other hand, had from the start been more equipped
and accoutered within the educational system, both by reason that it is the foreign
language being introduced and through the misplaced—and up to now, coloniallyminded—bias for its importance, although its importance in the global arena is
never denied. Consequently, the teaching and learning of Filipino, still aspirant of
38
Revisiting the BEP
a primary language status—and conscious of its indispensability in national unity
and nation-building—inherited such a denigrating bias as a second-class citizen
within the Filipino educational system.
It is such a second-class status for the National Language that Sen.
Macapagal-Arroyo’s indefatigable efforts to re-legislate English as a primary, if not
the sole Medium of Instruction, aim to perpetuate.
Purificacion G. Delima, PhD
Commissioner for Ilocano
Revisiting the BEP
39
REFERENCES
Bautista, Ma. Lourdes. 1995. An outline: The national language and The language of instruction. In Bautista, Ma. Lourdes (ed.), 1996, Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics, Manila: DLSU Inc.
Angara, Edgardo and Padilla, Carlos. 1991. EDCOM Report.
https://www.slideshare.net,ejuliosVillenes/edcom-report-by-rmvillenes-proj.-in-ed-m514. Downloaded on 3 July 2017.
Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1990. Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: Towards a multidimensional model of evaluation in Language planning. In Bautista (ed.), 1996.
______________________. 1990. Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In Bautista (ed.) 1996.
_______________________ and Bonifacio P. Sibayan (eds.). 1988. Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines (1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
40
Revisiting the BEP
Appendices
Appendix A, p-1
Revisiting the BEP
41
Appendix A, p-2
42
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix A, p-3
Revisiting the BEP
43
Appendix B
44
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-1
Revisiting the BEP
45
Appendix C, p-2
46
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-3
Revisiting the BEP
47
Appendix C, p-4
48
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-5
Revisiting the BEP
49
Appendix C, p-6
50
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-7
Revisiting the BEP
51
Appendix C, p-8
52
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-9
Revisiting the BEP
53
Appendix C, p-10
54
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-11
Revisiting the BEP
55
Appendix C, p-12
56
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-13
Revisiting the BEP
57
Appendix C, p-14
58
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix C, p-15
Revisiting the BEP
59
Appendix C, p-16
60
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix D, p-1
Revisiting the BEP
61
Appendix D, p-2
62
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix D, p-3
Revisiting the BEP
63
Appendix E, p-1
64
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix E, p-2
Revisiting the BEP
65
Appendix E, p-3
66
Revisiting the BEP
Appendix E, p-4
Revisiting the BEP
67