NAME: BENJIE F.

GOOD DATE: JUNE 28, 2017

SECTION: 3SE1 SUBJECT: ENGLISH 25
INSTRUCTOR: RUSSEL APORBO

Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education: Inadequate Proposition

Educational system in the Philippines specifically in the Department of Education (DepEd), has
now in the process in the advancement of its quality and standard that corresponds to the demands
of the ASEAN integration. And the DepEd’s curriculum in the entire nation has been changed into
K+12 system. Is this kind of change in our educational system can make a big difference to our desire
education? Or this new system will another an adverse?
The K-12 education system in the Philippines has been inflicted by so many criticism and
conflict which is somehow true to some various local sectors. Most of the parents complained about
the added costs; the teacher have been protested against the potential job loss that is somehow
really inevitable; and oppugn the country’s ability to handle the program. This new system, one of its
purpose is to teach the mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTBMLE), however, could the
government sustain and serve harmoniously the needs of every urban, rural and remote areas in the
country? Focusing in teaching the mother-tongue in the kindergarten level to the 3 rd grade will
become another formidable, since the Philippines focus in teaching the second language.
Upon the meeting of the committees on the higher education and on basic education with
Education Secretary Armin Luistro and Commission on Higher Education Chair Patricia Licuanan.
Representative Gunigundo asked Secretary Luistro to show any research evidence to support the
Department of Education’s position for an “early-exit” model on first language (L1) instruction. This
weak model provides for the use of the learners’ L1 as the medium of instruction (MOI) up to Grade 3
only, after which learners are abruptly shifted to English and Filipino as teaching mediums. Critics of
this model have amply demonstrated that it takes six to eight years of L1 instruction before learners
develop their literacy and academic skills in that language. This “six to eight” model of L1 instruction
is called a “late-exit” model because learners are also taught one or two second languages (L2) to
prepare them for high school where the L2 eventually become the primary MOI. The adequate
representation of the mother tongue has proven to foster cognitive, academic, language and socio-
cultural development, and eases the process of learning other languages like English however, It was
really evident that this MTBLE implementation of the government has never been planned thoroughly,
that just takes only three years to teach the native language but in the realm of learning it takes six to
eight years to master the MTBLE.
The seeming decline of other Philippine languages can be traced to the hypocrisy of self-
described supporters of some regional languages who use English as their preferred language in
attacking advocates of the national language, instead of spending their time and financial power on
propagating the actual use of indigenous languages in the regions. In fact, all pronouncements of
these groups are written in English. In their assemblies and conferences tackling “mother tongue-
based multilingual education,” English is also the medium.
Furthermore, education reform advocates have expressed serious concerns that the essential
components of a strong MTBMLE methodology are not evident in the K to 12 curriculum. They point
out that: Ongoing reform efforts notwithstanding, language remains the key to improving student
achievement. All other reforms would most likely have the same results as those developed within the
old bilingual setup if MTBMLE is not built into the curriculum plan. Curriculum reform will be
strengthened through planned use and development of the learners’ L1 throughout the entire
educational process. This means that the K to 12 curriculum is not merely a matter of decongesting
the old curriculum but of forming a new curriculum based on a different perspective and starting point.
The K to 12 curriculum should move away from a reading-based L2 curriculum which is not
appropriate for learners who have not yet gained fluency in L1 literacy.
 Overt integration of the learner’s linguistic and cultural world view into the curriculum should
replace foreign content (e.g. English songs, poems, rhymes, word examples, etc.) that do not reflect
or build on what the learners know. Foreign literature and culture will be well developed at a later
time in the curriculum, after time for L1 development and initial skill building in L2 oral communication.
Most DepEd personnel are still grappling with how teaching proceeds in an MTBMLE system.
This is something brand-new and cannot be accomplished well if pushed quickly. Additional time is
also required to adequately train teachers in MTBMLE methodology and the new curriculum, while
there are many experts able to consult on developing the curriculum, input practitioners who bring
experience and knowledge related to MTBMLE implementation would seem to be necessary and
practical.
This year will prove historic for Filipino learners because it heralds the shift to an entirely new
learning paradigm, one that is truly learner-centered and culture- and context-sensitive. This time,
there is no turning back.
More so, the government should have thorough research and in depth study about this kind of
change. Once we put things into action without considering some factors, things will never be
irrevocable and people will certainly suffer.

References: Debunking PH language myths

David Juan - http://opinion.inquirer.net/77526/debunking-ph-language-myths
http://opinion.inquirer.net/77526/debunking-ph-language-myths#ixzz4lMyLBz1K
Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) - Philippines
http://mothertongue-based.blogspot.com/2013/01/