Firth McEachern, 1 st International Research Conference on K-12
Education, Legazpi City, The Philippines, Aug 20-22, 2013

?
“ Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education , hereinafter referred to as
MLE, is the effective use of more than two languages for literacy and instruction. Henceforth, it shall be institutionalized as a fundamental educational policy and program in this Department in the whole stretch of formal education including preschool and in the Alternative Learning
System.”

?
“Right now, the mother tongue or the lingua franca (the common language used by a region) is used (at least in theory, although in practice things are quite different!) as the sole language of instruction during the first three grades of elementary school.”
– Dr. Isagani R. Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)
Former Undersecretary of
Education

Mayroon pa lang MLE policies noon…
Dr. Cruz was referring to a number of policy moves towards Mother Tongue
(MT) education over the last decade:
• 1999 DECS Order No. 80 specified that the MOI in all learning areas in
Grade I will be taught in the lingua franca
• 2001 Number of mother tongues to be used in the first three grades of the
Lingua Franca Education Project increased to 10. More schools identified as pilot schools.
• 2007 DepEd ordered all public schools
?
(not just pilot or selected schools) to use the mother tongue for the first three grades.

So what’s different about D.O. 74?
?
“The Order extends the use of the mother tongue beyond the first three years of elementary school…This means that the mother tongue will now be used not just for the first three grades, but all the way to the
last year of secondary school, its use progressing one level per year.”
– Dr. Isagani Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)

So what’s different about D.O. 74?
“At one level per year beginning with preschool starting June 2010, the use of the mother tongue as primary language of instruction will be fully implemented across the basic education curriculum by 2021.
Colleges and universities will start accepting high school graduates that were taught primarily in their mother tongue by 2021 or 2023.”
?
– Dr. Isagani Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)

Implementing Guidelines of Grades 1-
10 of the new Enhanced Curriculum
Enclosure 1, section D:
Medium of Instruction
?
“Mother Tongue (MT) shall be used as the medium of instruction and as a subject from Grade 1-3 . English or
Filipino is used from Grade 4 to 10.”

DepEd Order 31, s. 2012: Guidelines for K-12
?

?
Report : Closer to Home: how to help schools in lowand mediumincome countries respond to children’s language needs (2011)
“There are well documented teaching approaches which give children good access to national, regional and international languages, without damaging their education or their linguistic rights and heritage (World
Bank, 1995; Patrinos and Velez, 1996).”

?
Report : Closer to Home: how to help schools in lowand mediumincome countries respond to children’s language needs (2011)
“Robust evidence from several countries shows that children who do not use mainstream languages at home need to learn in their own language for at least six years , at the same time as being introduced to new languages that they will need later in life (Alidou et al, 2006)”

?
Report : Language and Education:
The Missing Link (2009)
“Children should learn second language in gradually increasing amounts from the beginning of school until at least grade 6 , before they can cope with the curriculum being delivered in that language.”

“Although children may develop functional language for social situations within a year, achieving academic literacy has been estimated to take 5 or more years for second-language learners.”
?
“Transitioning to full use of 2ndlanguage instruction before students have sufficient capacity in that language can block them from learning basic concepts that are key to comprehension.”

?
Report : Promoting Literacy in
Multilingual Settings (2006)
“International research shows that at least some five years of instruction in the first language – but preferably throughout the education system – is required to provide a solid foundation for further studies (e.g. Baker, 2006;
Baker & Hornberger, 2001; Benson,
2004, 2005; Cummins, 2000, 2001;
Thomas & Collier, 2002).”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Maintaining first language abilities and enhancing them through the development of literacy and academic language skills in L1 actually leads to better academic outcomes in L1
(Palmer, Chackelford, Miller & Leclere,
2007), easier literacy learning
(International Reading Association,
2001), and better outcomes in second language education (see e.g.,
Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Research and theory support the gradual introduction of L2, first through formal instruction in L2 as a subject of study, and subsequently, through the use of L2 in a gradually increasing number of academic subjects in the curriculum. However, this second step should not be taken too soon .”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Requiring minority language children to transition too soon to education in a new language (e.g., a majority language) can be detrimental to their learning processes and their academic achievement (e.g., Porter,
1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996).”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Unfortunately, research support for additive forms of bilingual education has too often been misconstrued, unwittingly or deliberately, as support for ‘short cut’ transition programmes that require children to tackle the academic curriculum in the new language before they have developed academic proficiency in their first language (Benson, 2002, 2009;
Thomas & Collier, 2002)”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“ ‘Short cut’ transition programs tend to result in subtractive bilingualism.
UNESCO works to raise awareness of the need to support children in becoming fully literate and highly proficient in their first language to create a foundation for the acquisition of additional language(s).”
“Creating a strong linguistic foundation typically requires at least six years of formal schooling in L1 as the medium of instruction.”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“In summary, where data are available, findings consistently show that children who have the opportunity to receive their formal education in L1 for at least six years have higher levels of achievement than those who must transition too soon to a medium they lack the metacognitive skills to understand and use effectively in academic work
(UNESCO, 2000; Mothibeli, 2005).”

?
Report : Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Yet, internationally, the trend is towards early-exit from mother tongue-based bi/multilingual education and a ‘fast track’ transition to English or another dominant language.”

?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“The first language 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 (first language as medium of instruction for at least six years of
formal schooling) .”

?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“The international Second Language
Acquisition literature indicates that under optimal conditions it takes six to
eight years to learn a second language in school sufficiently well enough to use it as a medium of instruction .”

?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“Language education models which remove the first language as a primary medium of instruction before year/grade five will facilitate little success for the majority of learners .”

?
“If one examines early-exit models and the findings of large-scale studies…(Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas and Collier, 1997, 2002; Halaoui,
2003; Sampa, 2003)…one finds that for the first three to four years students appear to be progressing well.”
“However, by mid-way through year four (sometimes sooner), these students in the submersion or early-exit to second language programmes start to fall behind ”

• Landmark longitudinal study on different language-in-education models
• Examined the records of 700,000 language minority students, speaking dozens of home languages, in five school systems across the
U.S. between 1985 and 2001
• Achievement levels in English reading were tracked from school entry through 11 th grade.
?
• Result: the strongest predictor of learner success at upper secondary levels in the dominant language (English) education system was the number of early years of instruction the learners had received in their mother tongue.

(from Thomas & Collier, 1997:53)

Additive

Additive

Late-exit

Early-exit
 Subtractive
(No MT)

?
A study conducted by the Ministry of Basic Education and GTZ compared experimental bilingual classrooms with traditional French-only classrooms. It was found that the MOI affects classroom interaction.
Bergmann et al. (2002) reported that interactive teaching style is more prevalent in experimental bilingual schools where both teachers and students are able to use the mother tongue.
The experimental teachers, using the L1, do not do most of the talking.
They let the pupils express themselves very often in the elementary classes.

?
By contrast, the use of unfamiliar languages forces teachers to use traditional and teacher-centred teaching methods. Chorus teaching, repetition, memorisation, recall, code-switching and safe talk are common patterns of L2 classrooms.
Thus, the use of mother tongues as languages of instruction facilitates the implementation of child-centred pedagogy.

Teachers allowed to use MT in first two grades (CI & CP) 
Teachers never allowed 
?
Dramatic effect language has on teaching style illustrated by the study: when
French was introduced as the main language of instruction in the third year
(CE1), bilingual teachers (EE) unfortunately went back to the use of teachercentered pedagogy, just like the traditional French-only teachers (ET).

?
In 2001, it was suggested that Niger move from a transitional bilingual model to more appropriate model that maintains the use of national languages as languages of instruction throughout primary school.

?
• Introduced mother-tongue education for the eight years of primary school in Ethiopia in 1994, with transition to English in secondary school.
• Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, Ethiopia was able to develop 22 Ethiopian languages in addition to Amharic as languages of learning.
• Accomplished through a system of decentralising educational administration to the regions and the emergence of enthusiastic and skilled language development teams and local publishers.

?
Retrieved from http://wikitravel.org/en/Ethiopia on 19 August 2013.

• Conditions across the country are complicated (civil conflict, military conflict along three national borders, the impact of climate change, and so on) implementation has differed from one region to the next
• In practice, some regions continue MT until Grade 8, others until
Grade 6, and others until Grade 4.
?
• Systemic assessments in 2000, 2004 and 2008 show that students with eight years of mother-tongue medium education achieve
better than students with six or four years of mother-tongue education (cf. Mekonnen, 2005; Heugh et al., 2010; Benson et al.,
2010).

?
• Schools using ‘convergent pedagogy’ were first introduced in Mali in
1987 (Canvin 2007:169). In this program, the mother tongue of the learner is used throughout primary school , and French is systematically introduced.

?
• In Pédagogie Convergente Schools, written French is not introduced until the child is literate in their mother tongue.
• In 1993, in the Ségou Region of Mali, the 1 st generation of Pédagogie
convergente students finished the basic six years of elementary school. 77% passed the national entry exam to 7 th Grade compared with the national avg of 66% (Traoré, 2001, p. 23).
• Pédagogie convergente was extended beyond the pilot schools beginning in 1994 and, by 2005, it was being used in 2,050 public schools nationwide and in 11 of the 13 national languages

?

?

?

?
• Another innovation introduced in Mali is the inclusion of tests in national languages along with other tests administered in French.
• This innovation establishes the importance of mother tongue instruction for both teachers and students in Mali.
• This change can help reduce teachers’ and students’ fears of lagging behind monolingual school pupils who are taught exclusively in
French from the first year onward (Traoré, 2001).

?
“Mali is moving from the implementation of an early- exit transitional bilingual model where mother tongues are quickly replaced by French
(before children develop satisfactory literacy in their first language) to the promotion of a maintenance bilingual model.”
—Alidou and Brock-Utne, 2011
The World Bank (2004) highlighted Mali as one of the African countries where learning in public schools is improving.

• Hamel (2008) reported an improvement in academic results when selected P’urhepecha schools shifted from an early-exit to a late-exit mother tongue (MT) transition model.
• Pupils achieved writing scores twice as high as those in the early-exit schools, in both the L1 (P’urhepecha) and L2 (Spanish).
• L1 Spanish-speaking Hnahnu pupils also performed well in bilingual schools that used mostly Spanish curriculum and included some L2
(their heritage language).
?
• The worst results were seen among indigenous-speaking pupils who were immersed in the second language at school, or those who had to transition from their L1 to L2 quickly.

Expected achievement visà-vis different L1 models
Extrapolated from Ramirez 1991, Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002; correlated with Macdonald 1990 and Heugh 2002

Expected achievement visà-vis different L1 models
As illustrated in the chart, the following ranges of mean achievement scores can be expected from the different language-in-education models:
• subtractive model: 20-30% (below avg compared to L1-educated pupils)
• early-exit transitional models: 30-40% (below avg)
• medium-exit transitional model: 40-50% (borderline avg)
• late-exit and very late-exit transitional model: 50-55% (above avg)
• additive multilingual model: 60% (above avg)
Extrapolated from Ramirez 1991, Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002; correlated with Macdonald 1990 and Heugh 2002

nd
Basque Country. Cenoz (2009) presents the results of a study conducted by the University of the Basque Country comparing English proficiency of students of the same age who had experienced different program models. Some students were introduced to English L2 instruction in kindergarten, others in 3 rd year of primary, and others in 6 th year of primary. Those students who were introduced to English late (either in
3 rd or 6 th year of primary school) scored higher on most of the tests, including vocabulary, grammar, and fluency.
?
Basque Country. Egiguren (2006) found no significant differences in
English vocabulary, reading, listening and speaking between Grade 4
Basque pupils who had started learning English in Kindergarten and those who had started in Grade 3.

?
nd
Catalonia. Muñoz (2006) investigated two age groups: intermediate starters (began English instruction at age 8-9) and late starters (began at age 11-12). Late starters obtained significantly higher results in academically oriented tests when the time of exposure was controlled.
Canada. Studies of English-speaking children in Canada in lateimmersion programs (in which the second language is introduced in grades seven or eight) have been found to perform just as well or better on tests of French language proficiency as children who began their immersion experience in earlier grades. (Genesee, 1987 and Harley,
1986)

?
nd
Other studies. Studies that control for the number of hours of exposure to the L2 in the classroom show, with high consistency, that those pupils who begin L2 instruction at a later age acquire L2 skills faster than those who begin earlier. That is, although early starters have the advantage of more hours of instruction, their learning is less efficient, making earlystart programs less worthwhile on a per hour basis (see Collins, Halter,
Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Lightbown & Spada, 1991, 1994; Cenoz,
2003; Garcia Lecumberri & Gallardo, 2003; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003;
Perales, 2004;).

Summary of these studies…when is the right time to introduce L2?
?
Research on second language acquisition is extremely mixed. The Basque,
Catalonian, and Canadian studies show however that early introduction or immersion of a second language (L2) does not necessarily lead to better mastery of L2. In fact, it can even lead to negative results. Why?
• Younger learners are not as as cognitively developed as older learners.
Younger learners cannot easily reflect on the metalinguistic aspects of language.
• Older learners are more efficient at recognizing patterns, and are able to ask more targeted questions.
• Older learners are better at prioritizing information
• Older learners have had more real-life experiences and may recognize the personal benefits of acquiring a second language.
• Older learners are more literate (in the L1), allowing for richer instruction in
L2 (grammar rules, deeper vocabulary, more complex analogies, etc).
• Older learners often have had more exposure to the L2 outside the classroom than younger learners (having lived longer and participated in more language domains), and thus may have some familiarity with the L2 already by the time they begin formal instruction in it.

• Therefore, the early introduction of Filipino and English and the early removal of the MT in the Philippine education system is no guarantee for higher linguistic proficiencies.
• Policy makers should weigh the costs and benefits of early introduction of L2. Are we getting “bang for our buck”? By phasing in Filipino and English early, we our consuming lots of classroom time—time that could be better spent thru higher impact L1 learning.
“More exposure to the [second/foreign] language can contribute to a higher level of proficiency, but the results do not prove that this
?
exposure has to take place from an earlier age rather than in a more
intensive way in later grades.” — Cenoz (2009)

Additional references supporting late-exit and additive mother tongue-based education models
Malherbe, 1943;
Bamgbose, 1984, 2000;
Fafunwa, 1990;
Hartshorne, 1992;
Dutcher & Tucker, 1995;
Dutcher, 2004;
ADEA, 1996;
Garcia and Baker, 1996;
Elugbe, 1996;
Thomas and Collier, 2002;
May 1999;
Moll 1992;
Slavin & Cheung 2003 ;
?
Wong Fillmore 1991
Küper, 1998;
Baker, 2006;
Baker & Hornberger 2001;
Heugh, 2003;
CAL 2001;
Skutnabb-Kangas 2000;
Cenoz & Genesee 1998;
Cummins 1989, 1992, 2000;
Dolson & Mayer 1992;
Greene 1997;
Hakuta 1986;
Krashen 1996, 2000;
Lindholm-Leary 2001;
Ramírez, Pasta, Yuen, Ramey &
Billings 1991;

?
Research conducted on early-exit programs often only cover the first few grades of school. That is, they obtain data showing the positive results of the MT while it is still being used, but fail to follow-up a few years later to see if the gains made during the MTbased grades have been sustained since transitioning to a different
MOI.

?
In reality, the gains of MT education are often not sustained if the transition to second languages is too early.
Therefore…
“Any evaluation of an early-exit transitional programme which does not show students’ performance to at least grade six (i.e. the medium-term resilience of the intervention) is fundamentally flawed”
— Heugh (2011)

?
language, especially the MT, can transfer and be applied to additional languages; this hypothesis is supported by an observed high correlation between strong L1 foundation, and acquisition and aptitude of L2(s)
in schools; teachers are directed on when and how to use the L1, and when and how to transition to other language(s).

The problem is, many policy-makers blur the two. They believe that by enforcing an earlier language transition, they are facilitating crosslinguistic transfer.
?
In reality, cross-linguistic transfer is a natural, psycholinguistic process that happens at its own pace, on its own terms, with many contributing factors. Of course, there will be no cross-linguistic transfer of literacy skills without exposure to additional languages, which is why schools play an important role. But educators cannot make the assumption that cross-linguistic transfer will abide by the particular MOI sequence that they have adopted in their school system.

A mother tongue transition policy does not and cannot decide when children will be able to transfer their linguistic skills. In fact, it is the other way around. Our knowledge of how cross-linguistic transfer works should inform policy-makers about what kind of transition plan to pursue.
?
We know that it takes at least 6 years of second language learning to develop enough proficiency in the L2 to use it in wide range of academic subjects; this fact should guide policy-makers in devising a complementary language transition plan that makes use of the L1 for at least 6 years.

?
Example, the Zambian case:
“Unfortunately, the conflation of the terms transition and transfer was carried through to the Zambian Reading project. In the Zambian context, initial literacy in year one, with the rest of the curriculum taught through
English, was understood as facilitating [cognitive and linguistic] transfer
– when in fact it facilitated a very early-exit-to-English model.”
— Heugh (2011)

?
“Even well-meaning and well-intentioned initiatives…have often misunderstood, misconstrued or misapplied the theory of additive bilingual education and mis-identified early-exit models for either lateexit or additive bilingual models of education.”
“Alidou and Maman (2003) argue that…most countries talk about additive bilingual models but [in fact] have transitional ones in place”
— Heugh (2011)

Example, South Africa:
“From 2002 to 2009, the revised curriculum was based on the completely incorrect assumption that additive bilingual education can be provided with three years of mother-tongue education followed by a switch to English medium from year four onwards.”
— Ibid.

“Sometimes, even when the external advisors/agencies understand the need for substantial mother-tongue education, they feel constrained to offer ministries/departments of education encouragement when there is a shift from subtractive to early-exit models. Although they understand that this is insufficient, they believe that the use of some mother-tongue education is better than none at all”
— Heugh (2011)

However:
“While evaluators wish to acknowledge progress in moving from subtractive (zero mother-tongue education) programs to early-exit, they ought not to obscure the central problem. It is to the medium- to longterm disservice of the program provider, the community in which the program is conducted, and the national education system where relevant, if the evaluator does not point out the fundamental design flaw(s). The design flaw of the early-exit models offer a lose-lose scenario for all stakeholders over the medium- to long- term.”
—Ibid.

?
“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...”

Early-exit transition models : first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT) is included as a medium of instruction (MOI) up to Grade 3, before transitioning to other MOI(s). These are weak MLE models.
Late-exit transition models : first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT) is included as a subject and a medium of instruction (MOI) up to Grade 6, and is used at least 50% of total instructional time (Ramirez et. al. 1991).
These are strong MLE models.
?
Additive models: first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT) is included as a medium of instruction (MOI) throughout all years of basic education, alongside other MOI(s). These are strong MLE models.

• The “mother language transition” from Grade 4 to Grade 6 is quite vague.
• Notably, regarding this transition, the law states that English and
Filipino will be “ gradually introduced as languages of instruction until such time when these two languages become the primary languages of instruction at the secondary level .” Since Grade 4-6 is still elementary level, this means that English and Filipino are not yet considered primary languages of instruction (LOI) during this period, implying that some or most of the subjects should still use the MT as
LOI. Secondly, we can also infer that the number of MT-based subjects would gradually decrease during this period.
?
• Thus, RA 10553 commits the Department of Education to a medium, or at best, late-exit MT transition program.

Linguistic development is needed before some MTs can be introduced at higher levels. Such as:
• Corpus planning activities (Cooper, 1989, p. 149), including the extension of the language for new functions and topics
• Regularization of spelling and other written conventions are a prerequisite for effective learning and for producing high quality teaching and learning materials.
• Early experimentation in Mali showed that some concepts were not easily transferable to the mother tongues (“national languages”) due to a lack of appropriate technical vocabulary in those languages.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning

Pacing. If you decide to extend the use of MT to new grade levels or otherwise make a big change to the school system, time is needed for planning, and implementing.
• Educational models evolve with time.
• Educational reforms should be introduced progressively, on an experimental basis first, in order to implement necessary improvements.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning

Medium of instruction is not everything:
• The use of local languages as medium of instruction does not suffice to guarantee optimum effectiveness of teaching and learning
• In Mali, the introduction of MT in 1979 improved outcomes somewhat, but much greater success in MT schools has been seen since the 1990s, when the language, teaching methods, AND content of instruction were improved in an integrated way.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning

Materials are very important:
• Well-planned and structured provision of literature for readers
• Primer and basic reading materials not enough.
• sequential, graded reading materials to move the learners “step-bystep” to develop full, life-long literacy
• Materials for other subjects too.
Young, Catherine (2005). “Developing Teaching/Learning Materials and Graded Reading Materials”. In First
Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia . UNESCO
Bangkok.

External factors affect the feasibility of extended, more robust MLE programs:
• Sufficient funding for activities is critical (that said, extended MLE programs need not be very expensive – see Vaillancourt and Grin,
2000; World Bank 2005; ADB 2010)
• Also important that local language communities contribute to the effort in various ways
• Political conditions must support, or at least permit, stronger MLE programs.

• All grade 1 teachers in urban areas of San Fernando City, La Union were given a short questionnaire about Mother Tongue-based
Multilingual Education (MTBMLE)
• Among other questions, they were asked to what extent MT should be used in basic education, both in terms of number of years and subjects.
?
• Number of respondents is 44. This survey just provided a glimpse of teacher sentiments in the year 2013. It is not to be taken as representative of other regions; moreover, opinions continue to evolve as the K-12 curriculum, including MTBMLE, is implemented.

15
10
5
0
25
20
MT for most subjects until
Grade 3; no MT subjects thereafter
MT for most subjects until G3; some MT-based subjects thereafter
MT for most subjects throughout
None of the above

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Science Math AP EPP/TLE MAPEH EsP
Subject

25
20
15
10
5
0
40
35
30
Mother
Tongue
Filipino English Other

?
• More teachers prefer there to be some role for the MT beyond grade
3, as an medium of instruction, compared with no role at all. This is in line with the need for a suitable, gradual transition from MT to other languages.
• For the secondary level, English is the priority language for the majority of respondents
• Teachers identified AP and EsP as the most suitable subjects for using
MT as a medium of instruction beyond Grade 3. MAPEH and EPP/TLE received the next highest number of responses.

?
• Precaution: opinions are opinions. They do not necessarily reflect sound research findings or what’s best for the learner
• However, it is important to consider what teachers think, as they are the ultimate implementers of MOI policies!
• Surveys on teacher perception are valuable for:
– shaping realistic policies
– Understanding the level of awareness of teachers about certain issues
– Seeing how acceptance of certain policies changes over time as teachers actually implement them.

1 st Language Curriculum
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
Math
K-3 n/a
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This model, in which children receive the majority of their education thru their mother tongue, is often enjoyed by children who are speakers of dominant languages. It is also provided to regional, minority, and indigenous groups of some countries, but not the Philippines. If political, economic, social, or linguistic obstacles prevent the implementation of this model, then consider a lateexit transitional model…

Extended MLE Model
Significant transition after Grade 6
4 5 6 7 8 SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
Math
K-3 n/a
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
9 10
In this model, there would be a big adjustment from Grade 6 to Grade 7, but the transition could be “softened” if teachers are trained to gradually integrate English and Filipino in lessons before Grade 7, and also if one or two subjects continue in the mother tongue medium through high school. If political, economic, social, or linguistic obstacles prevent the implementation of this model, then consider a another transitional model…

Extended MLE Model
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
K-3 n/a
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Math
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
In this model, the number of subjects using mother tongue (MT) as a medium of instruction (MOI) decreases gradually between grades 4-6 for a smoother transition. Content subjects which can be realistically translated into the MT at higher levels (such as AP, MAPEH, etc.) can transition later than subjects like Math or Science, which may lack technical terms in the MT. Note: even if instructional materials are rendered in English by Grade 5 in
Science and Math, the MT should be taken advantage of to scaffold learning. This model is compatible with
Republic Act 10553. If political, economic, social, or linguistic obstacles prevent the implementation of this model, however, then consider a “medium-exit” transitional model…

Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
K-3 n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Problem with this model: children may not have enough command of English to already begin using it to learn
Science and Math in Grade 4.

Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
Math
K-3 n/a
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
4 5 6 7 any
8 any
9 any
10 any
Ideally, a mother tongue subject should be included in all grades to continue to facilitate cross-linguistic transfer of literacy and cognitive skills. L1 reading achievement, even as late at high school, is strongly correlated with L2 listening, speaking, and writing ability (see Sparks et. al. 2012).

Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
Math
AP
K-3 n/a
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 any n/a any n/a any n/a any n/a
Note: While English and Filipino are the primary mediums of instruction (MOIs) at the secondary level, it is not necessary that this policy is restrictive. DepEd can theoretically identify one or two subjects that can be taught in any language as deemed appropriate by the region, division, or school. An element of choice, in some cases, is favorable for educators to make the best adaptations of national policy in the interest of their learners and sociocultural context. EsP is a good candidate for flexibility because unlike Science, Math, AP, etc, it is not part of the high-stakes National Assessments and therefore could be taught in any language.

The plan of DepEd as of 2012 (before RA 10533) was to discontinue the MT as an MOI after Grade 3, as can be seen by this figure. The plan does not give the student enough time to develop his literacy skills before being forced to switch to second languages as sole MOIs. It remains to be seen, however, whether DepEd will respond to RA 10533 and extend the MT beyond Grade 3.

DepEd Order 31, s. 2012
SUBJEC
T
Filipino
English
Science
K-3 n/a
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Math
AP
EPP/TLE n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Another big weakness: D.O
. 31’s incorporation of two language transitions in subjects such as MAPEH (wherein the MOI is defined as MT for Grades K-3, Filipino for 4-5, and English for Grade 6+) places unnecessary burden on learners. The extension of the MT will not only buy vital time for developing literacy in the L1, but will also resolve the problem of the double transition. Through the extended use of MT as a MOI, learners can better absorb the content of subjects like EPP/TLE and MAPEH until at least Grade 5, before transitioning to English.
The same with AP and EsP with regards to transitioning to Filipino. Every subject should ideally have only one language transition (MT  E or MT  F), if at all.

Adapted from “Stairs to Nowhere” by Rolfe ‘13

MT still plays role as a subject and as an
Language of instruction
(LOI) up to Grade 6.

MT is used as a LOI in gradually decreasing amounts, all the way to Grade 6.

(w/ sharp transition )
Subject
Filipino
English
Science
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
MAPEH
EsP
MT
K-3 n/a n/a
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Subject
Filipino
English
(w/ staggered transition)
Science
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
MAPEH
EsP
MT
K-3 n/a n/a
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 any any any any

Submersion
Education
(no development of L1, poor development of L2’s )
Early-Exit MT transition
(incomplete development of L1 and L2’s as medium of instruction shifts)
Extended MT transition
(cognitive academic proficiency developed in multiple languages for lifelong learning)

?
• The choice of language(s) as Mediums of Instruction from Grades 4–6 is still under scrutiny
• Republic Act 10553 tasks DepEd to formulate a “mother language
transition program” for Grades 4–6.
• The status quo of transitioning from MT to English/Filipino early and simultaneously across all subjects is not well-supported by research.

?
• There are many possible options for extended L1  L2 transitions
• No one knows what is best, because MT has never been used as a medium of instruction beyond Grade 3 in this country. We are in new educational territory!
• All we know is that, from international experience, late-exit
programs are generally more successful than early-exit ones. We also know that there is not just one successful approach.

• We can also reliably predict that a single MOI model will not be
equally appropriate for all schools in the Philippines.
• DepEd’s “mother language transition program” for Grades 4–6 will ideally be moderate, research-grounded, and not so restrictive so that it can be widely implementable
• This can act as a minimum standard. Meanwhile, pilot projects can be organized so schools can experiment, on a smaller scale, a variety of MLE programs that go beyond the minimum standard. Costs, sociolinguistic issues, teacher training, parental and community preferences all play a part in the design of approaches.
?
• Such pilots will enhance our understanding of multilingual education in the Philippine context and shape future policy and practice.

References
ADEA (1996). A Synopsis of Research Findings on Languages of Instruction and their Policy
Implications for Education in Africa. (Working Group on Education Research and Policy Analysis).
Working Paper for the Meeting of African Ministers of Education and the Seminar on Languages of Instruction, Accra, Ghana, August 26-30, 1996.
Alidou, Hassana & Birgit Brock-Utne (2011). “Teaching practices – teaching in a familiar language.” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning: Education and Publishing in Africa:
The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 159-185.
Alidou, H. et al (2006) Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa – the Language Factor, A
Stock-taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub- Saharan Africa. Paris:
Association for the Development of Education in Africa.
Asian Development Bank (2010). Strengthening Inclusive Education. Manila: ADB.
?

References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4 th
Multilingual Matters. ed. Clevedon:
Baker, C. & Hornberger, N.H. (2001) (eds.) An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim
Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bamgbose, Ayo (2000). Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in
Africa. Münster, Hamburg, London: LIT.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1984). Introduction: The Changing Role of the Mother Tongue in Education. In:
Mother Tongue Education. The West African Experience, ed. by Ayo Bamgbose, 9-26. London:
Hodder and Stoughton; Paris: UNESCO.
Benson, Carol et al. (2010). The Medium of Instruction in the Primary Schools in Ethiopia: a
Study and its Implications for Multilingual Education. In: Multilingual Education Works: from the
Periphery to the Centre, ed. by Kathleen Heugh, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 40-82. New Delhi:
Orient BlackSwan.
?

?
References
Benson, C. (2009). Designing effective schooling in multilingual contexts: The strengths and limitation of bilingual ‘models.’ In Mohanty, A., Panda, M., Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T.
(Eds.). Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient
Blackswan.
Benson, C. (2005) Girls, Educational Equity and Mother Tongue-based Teaching. Bangkok:
UNESCO Bangkok. On WWW at: http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/Girls_Edu_Equity/index. htm
Benson, C. (2004) The Importance of Mother Tongue-based Schooling for Educational Quality.
Background paper for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO.
Benson, C. (2002). Real and potential benefits of bilingual progammes in developing countries.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5 (6), 303-317.

?
References
Bergmann, Herbert et al. (2002). Les Langues Nationales à l’École Primaire. Evaluation de l’École
Experimentale. Niamey: Ministère de l’Éducation de Base, Édition Albasa s/c GTZ-2PEB.
Brock-Utne, Birgit & Hassana Alidou (2011). “Active students – learning through a language they master.” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning: Education and Publishing in Africa:
The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 187-215.
CAL. (2001) Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Canvin, M. (2007). Language and education issues in policy and practice in Mali, West Africa. N.
Rassool (ed.). Global Issues in Language, Education and Development: Perspectives from
Postcolonial Countries. Clevedon, UK, Multilingual Matters Ltd.

References
Cenoz, J. (2009). The Age Factor in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. In Towards Multilingual
Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Bristol, UK: St.
Nicholas House.
Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.) (1998) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual
Education. Multilingual Matters 110. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chekaraou, Ibro (2004). Teachers’ Appropriation of Bilingual Educational Reform Policy in Sub-
Saharan Africa: A Socio-Cultural Study of Two Hausa-French Schools in Niger. Ph.D. thesis.
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Collins, L., Halter, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in second language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655-680.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press.
?

References
Cruz, Isagani (2009). “Mother tongue education: Part one.” The Philippine Star. July 23, 2009.
Cruz, Isagani (2009). “Mother tongue education: Part two.” The Philippine Star. July 30, 2009.
Cummins, J. (2001) Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Education. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1), pp.61–75.
Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1992) “Bilingual Education and English Immersion: The Ramirez Report in
Theoretical Perspective,” Bilingual Research Journal 16(1&2), 91-104.
Cummins, J. (1989) Empowering minority students. Ontario, CA: California Association for
Bilingual Education.
?

References
Dolson, D. & Mayer, J. (1992) “Longitudinal study of three program models for languageminority students: A critical examination of reported findings.” Bilingual Research Journal,
16(1&2), 105-157.
Dutcher, Nadine (2004). Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies,
2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Dutcher, Nadine and Richard Tucker (1995). The Use of First and Second Languages in Education.
A Review of International Experience. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series Number 1.
Washington: The World Bank.
Egiguren, I. (2006) Atzerriko hizkuntza goiztiarraren eragina gaitasun eleaniztunean. PhD thesis,
University of the Basque Country.
Elugbe, Ben (1996). The Use of African Languages in Basic Education in Nigeria with Particular
Reference to Lower Primary and Functional Literacy. In: African Languages in Basic Education.
Proceedings of the First Workshop on African languages in Basic Education, NIED, Okahanja, 18-
23 September 1995, ed. by Karsten Legère, 25-40. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers.
?

References
Fafunwa, Aliu Babtunde (1990). Who is Afraid of the Use of African Languages in Education? In:
Propos Africains sur l’Éducation Pour Tous. Sélection d’articles présentés à l’occasion de la
consultation régionale sur l’Éducation Pour Tous. Dakar: UNESCO-UNICEF.
Garcia Lecumberri, M.L. and Gallardo, F. (2003) English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. In M.P. Garcia Mayo and M.L. Garcia Lecumberri (eds) Age and the Acquisition of English as
a Foreign Language. (pp. 115-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Garcia, Ofelia and Colin Baker (1996) (2nd edition). Policy and Practice in Bilingual Education.
Extending the Foundations. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual
Education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Gove, Amber & Anna Wetterberg (eds) (2011). The Early Grade Reading Assessment:
Applications and Interventions to Improve Basic Literacy. RTI Press.
?

References
Greene, J. (1997) “A Meta-Analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research,” Bilingual Research Journal 21(2, 3): 103-122.
Grin, F. Economic Considerations in Language Policy (2005). Ricento, T. (ed). 2005. An
Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Halaoui, Nazam (2003). Relevance of Education: Adapting Curricula and Use of African
Languages. Background Paper. ADEA Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 3 – 6 Dec 2003.
Hamel, Rainer Enrique (2008). “Plurilingual Latin America: Indigenous Languages, Immigrant
Languages, Foreign Languages – Towards an Integrated Policy of Language and Education.” In:
Forging Multilingual Spaces: Integrated Perspectives on Majority and Minority Bilingual
Education ed. by Christine Helot & Anne-Marie de Mejia.
Harley, B. (1986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
?

References
Hartshorne, Ken. (1992). Crisis and Challenge: Black Education 1910-1990. Cape Town: OUP.
Heugh, Kathleen (2011). “Theory and practice – language education models in Africa: research, design, decision-making and outcomes” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning:
Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for
Lifelong Learning and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 105-156
Heugh, Kathleen et al. (2010). Multilingual Education in Ethiopia: What Assessment Shows us about What Works and What Doesn’t. In: Multilingual Education Works: from the Periphery to
the Centre, ed. by Kathleen Heugh and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 287-315. New Delhi: Orient
BlackSwan.
Heugh, Kathleen. (2003). A Re-take on Bilingual Education in and for South Africa. In:
Multilingualism in Global and Local Perspectives. Selected papers from the 8th Nordic
Conference on Bilingualism, November 1-3, 2001, ed. by Kari Fraurud and Kenneth Hyltenstam,
47-62. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University and Rinkeby
Institute of Multilingual Research.
?

References
International Reading Association (2001). Second language literacy instruction: A position statement on the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: IRA.
Krashen, S. (2000) “Bilingual education, the acquisition of English, and the retention and loss of
Spanish,” In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the U.S. Somerville. MA: Cascadilla Press.
Krashen, S. (1996) Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language
Education Associates.
Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (2003) Maturational constraints on foreign-language written production. In M.P. Garcia Mayo and M.L. Garcia Lecumberri (eds) Age and the acquisition of
English as a Foreign Language. (pp. 136-160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada. N. (1991). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
12, 429-448.
?

References
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1994). An innovative programme for primary ESL in Quebec.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 563-579.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-
Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 176-222). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001) Dual Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Macdonald, Carol. (1990). Main Report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: The Human Sciences
Research Council.
Malherbe, Ernst Gideon. (1943). The Bilingual School. Johannesburg: CNA.
May, S. (eds.) (1999) Indigenous Community-based Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
?

References
Mekonnen, Alemu Gebre Yohannes. (2005). Socio-Cultural and Educational Implications of Using
Mother Tongues as Languages of Instruction in Ethiopia. Master thesis. University of Oslo.
Moll, L. (1992) Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends.
Educational Researcher 21(2), 20-24.
Mothibeli, A. (2005). Cross-country achievement results from the SACMEQ 11 Project – 2000 to
2002. A quantitative analysis of education systems in Southern and Eastern Africa. Edusource
Data News No. 49. October. Johannesburg: The Education Foundation Trust.
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In C. Muñoz
(ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Palmer, B.C., Shackelford, V.S., Miller, S.C., & Leclere, J.T. (2007). Bridging two worlds: Reading comprehension, figurative language instruction and the English-language learner. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50 (4), 258-266.
?

References
Patrinos, H. and Velez, E. (1996) Costs and benefits of bilingual education in Guatemala: a partial
analysis. World Bank: Human Capital Development Working Paper No. 74.
Perales, S. (2004) La adquisición de la negación en inglés por hablantes bilingües en euskaracastellano. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.
Philippines, Republic of (2013). Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
Fifteenth Congress, Congress of the Philippines: Metro Manila. Approved May 15, 2013.
Philippines, Republic of, Department of Education (2012). Department Order No. 31, series 2012:
Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 Basic Education
Curriculum Effective School Year 2012-2013. Approved April 17, 2012.
Pinnock, Helen (2009). Language and Education: The Missing Link. London: Save the Children
Alliance / CfBT Education Trust.
?

References
Pinnock, Helen, Pamela Mackenzie, Elizabeth Pearce, & Catherine Young (2011). Closer to home: how to help schools in low- and middle-income countries respond to children’s language needs.
London: Save the Children Alliance / CfBT Education Trust.
Piper, Benjamin & Emily Miksic (2011). “Mother Tongue and Reading Using Early Grade Reading
Assessment to Investigate Language-of-Instruction Policy in East Africa.” In A. Gove & A.
Wetterberg (eds.) The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications and Interventions to
Improve Basic Literacy. RTI Press.
Porter, R.P. (1990). Forked tongue. New York: Basic Books.
Ramírez J., S. Yuen, D. Ramey & D. Pasta. 1991. Final Report: Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early- exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-
minority children. (Vol. I) (Prepared for U.S. Department of Education). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre
International. No. 300-87-0156.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research
in the Teaching of English, 30, 7-74.
?

References
Sampa, Francis. 2003. Country Case Study: Republic of Zambia. Primary Reading Programme
(PRP): Improving Access and Quality Education in Basic Schools. Working Document. ADEA
Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 3–6 December 2003.
Slavin R.E. & Cheung A. (2003) Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners: A
Best-Evidence Synthesis. Report No. 66. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk (CRESPAR). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University. URL: www.csos.jhu.edu
Sparks, Richard L., Jon Patton, Leonore Ganschow, and Nancy Humbach (2012). ‘Do L1 Reading
Achievement and L1 Print Exposure Contribute to the Prediction of L2 Proficiency?’ Language
Learning 62:2, June 2012, pp. 473-505
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, Wayne and Virginia Collier. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for
Language Minority Students’ Long-term Academic Achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington,
DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
?

References
Thomas, Wayne and Virginia Collier (1997). School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students.
(National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education NCBE Resource Collection Series; 9).
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Traoré, Samba. (2001). La Pédagogie Convergente: Son Expérimentation au Mali et son Impact sur le Système Éducatif. Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.
UNESCO (2011). Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother
Tongue-based Bilingual Or Multilingual Education In The Early Years. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2008). Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO (2006). Promoting Literacy in Multilingual Settings. Bangkok: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2000). Education for All. Status and Trends 2000. Assessing learning achievement,
International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
?

References
United Kingdom. Department for International Development (2005). Case studies: Zambia education. Retrieved from: http://www.dfid.gov.uk
Vaillancourt, François and François Grin. (2000). Language and Socioeconomic Status in Quebec:
Measurement, Findings, Determinants, and Policy Costs. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 121: 69-92.
World Bank (1995) Costs and Benefits of Bilingual Education in Guatemala. HCO Dissemination
Note No. 60.
World Bank. (2005). In their Own Language: Education for All. Education Notes. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991) “When learning a second language means losing the first,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.
Young, Catherine (2005). “Developing Teaching/Learning Materials and Graded Reading
Materials”. In First Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority