0883–29l9

McKinley*s questionable bequest:

orer 100 years of English in Philippine education
ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO*

ABSTRACT: The English language has enjoyed a privileged status in Philippine formal education since US
President McKinley declared it the medium of instruction of the Philippine public educational system
in l900. But the pre-eminence of English has been vigorously called to question since then. This paper
traces the changing status of English in Philippine education from the establishment of the American
colonial government to the current implementation o f the Bilingual Education Policy. It then
discusses five dominant themes in the competing discourses regarding the role o f English in Philippine
education. Finally, the emerging prospects for English in Philippine education are described.

INTRODUCTIONl
The English language has enjoyed a privileged status in Philippine formal education for
more than a hundred years. In the Letter of Instruction to the Philippine Commission
issued on April 7, l900, US President William McKinley declared that English be the
medium of instruction at all levels of the public educational system in the Philippines.
More than a century after, English is well entrenched and quite dominant in the Philippine
education system. But this pre-eminence of English has been vigorously challenged over
the years. In this paper, I attempt to describe the changing status ofEnglish as a medium of
instruction in Philippine formal education. I will do so by first providing a brief history of
language-related educational developments in the Philippines. I will then describe the
competing discourses that surround the use of English in Philippine education. Finally,
I will discuss the likely prospects for English in Philippine education, in the context of
such debates.

A BRIEF HISTORY
The history ofthe ‘language ofinstruction’ issue in Philippine education might be said to
begin during the American colonial period from l900 to l94l. Prior to this period, the
matter of education was either unsystematic or undocumented. Although there were
schools established during the Spanish colonial period from l565 to l898, the colonial
government did not establish a systematic program for education. Indeed, the
generally accepted policy was not to educate the Filipinos because the Spaniards
feared that the Filipinos would revolt against Spain if they knew too much (see, e.g.,
Bernabe, l978). The colonization ofthe country in the mid-sixteenth century also brought
about the eradication of whatever form of education (and documentation thereof ) existed
in the Philippine archipelago prior to the colonial period. Thus, we may argue that, for
our purposes, the

* College of Education, De La Salle University-Manila, 240l Taft Avenue, Manila l004 Philippines. E-mail:
bernardoa@dlsu.edu.ph

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02l48, USA.
l8 Allan B. I. Bernardo

history of the language of instruction issue in Philippine education begins in l900 with
McKinley’s Letter of Instruction.

The English-only policy

Several considerations motivated the English-only language policy that was immediately
and systematically implemented throughout the country. According to Prator (l950: l5),
McKinley actually ordered the Philippine Commission to use the ‘language of the people’
in the public schools to be set up in the Philippines. But this original order gave way to the
official letter of instruction that seemed to acknowledge the difficulty in using the language
o f the people (however defined) when there were no teaching materials in the native
languages. According to Martin (l999: l33–4), the American colonial government decided
to adopt the English-only policy for several reasons. First, the American teachers could
more effectively teach in English. Second, English was thought to be a language that could
unite the Filipinos from the different regions who spoke different languages and
dialects. Third, English was thought of ‘as the language that would provide the Filipinos
access to civilization . . . the life of reason and prudence’ (Martin, l999: l34). Martin
continues, ‘This, of course, assumed that a civilized citizenry was not prone to
rebellion.’ It was as if the colonizer was lending its language to ‘civilize’ the subjects of
the colony, so that they might participate in the society that was determined by the
colonizer, in ways determined by the colonizer.
The pedagogical considerations became secondary to the political and social agenda of
the colonial government. Thus, English was used as a medium o f instruction with a
pedagogy that assumed English was the primary language of the students (Alberca, l994;
Gonzalez, this issue; Sibayan, l967). The curriculum was largely filled with literacy-
building courses such as reading, spelling, writing, composition, rhetoric, and literature
(Martin, l999: l34). Both students and teachers were not allowed to utter a word in any
language other than English (Sibayan, l967). The teaching materials contained only
Anglo-American content, which is still largely true in most English-related curricula
even to this day (Martin, l999: l34).

Eauly cuiticisms of the English-only policy

The problems of educating a population of people using a foreign language became
evident soon after. Many American and Filipino critics wrote unequivocally about the
problems in using English as the medium of instruction. According to Salamanca (l968:
86), two American scholars studied the state ofpublic education in the Philippines (in l904
and l9l3) and both found low levels of English language proficiency among the Filipino
students. Based on his own studies, Saleeby (l924) recommended that three regional
languages should be used together with English in elementary education. In l93l, the Vice
Governor General of the Philippine Islands, George C. Butte, declared that all
instruction in the elementary schools ‘should be given in one of the nine native languages
which is appropriate to the locality, as soon as the necessary textbooks can be
provided and qualified teachers obtained’ (cited in Martin, l999: l33). An official
evaluation of the Philippine education system conducted by the Monroe Survey
Commission of l925 actually found that ‘no other single difficulty has been so great as
that of overcoming the foreign language handicap’ (Monroe, l925: l27). The ‘foreign
language handicap’ notwithstanding, the Monroe Survey Commission recommended
the continuation of the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
 McKinley’s questionable bequest l9

English-only policy reaffirming the original tenets that motivated this policy (Monroe,
l925: 24–7).

Expeuimenting with bilingual education

The first real threat to the ascendancy of English in Philippine education came in
l939, when Jorge Bocobo became Secretary of Education. He issued an order to the effect
that English be continued as a medium of instruction but that primary school teachers
be allowed to use the local languages as a supplementary tool for instruction.
According to Sibayan (l978), this order effectively began bilingual education in the
Philippines, although the policy was never labeled as such. In l940, the teaching o f
the national language, Pilipino (based on Tagalog and renamed Filipino in l986) was
required for senior high school students. During the Japanese occupation, the teaching of
Pilipino was encouraged. After World War II, Pilipino was a required subject in the
primary and secondary school curriculum, as well as in the teacher education and liberal
arts college programs.
Amidst all these developments, English remained the primary and dominant language of
instruction in Philippine schools. But in the l940s and l950s there were many experiments
undertaken involving the exclusive use oflocal languages as medium ofinstruction. One of
the most famous was the longitudinal experiment of Jose V. Aguilar in Iloilo from l948
to l954, using Hiligaynon as the medium of instruction in elementary education
(Ramos, Aguilar and Sibayan, l967: 37–43, l23–5). The Aguilar study and many others
indicated that Filipino children learned more effectively, and were better able to apply
what they learned in schools in their home and communities when the vernacular was
used. These experiments provided empirical evidence on the pedagogical benefits of
using local languages in education, or to state it negatively, on the pedagogical
disadvantages of using English as medium of instruction.
There were two other relevant developments in the educational circles that contributed
to the criticism of the English-only policy during the l950s. The first was the UNESCO
monograph affirming the necessity of beginning schooling in the students’ mother tongue
‘because they understand it best and because to begin their school life in the mother
tongue will make the break between the home and school as small as possible’ (UNESCO,
l953: 69l). The second was the report of Prator (l950) on language education in the
Philippines that introduced the idea of teaching English as a second language.
Education using the veunaculaus and teaching English as a second language
The experiments in vernacular education and related developments culminated in l957
with the promulgation of the Revised Philippine Education Program (Bureau of Public
Schools, l957), which provided for the use ofthe vernaculars as language ofinstruction for
the first two grades of elementary school. At these grades, English was taught as a subject,
but was not used as the medium of instruction. The program also provided for a shift to
English as medium of instruction from third grade through college, using the vernacular
as auxiliary medium of instruction in Grades 3 and 4, and Pilipino, as auxiliary medium
in Grades 5 and 6. This change marked an important shift in the role of English in
Philippine education. English was still the medium of instruction in most of the formal
education system. However, the pedagogy was now consistent with strategies for teaching
English as a second language. Materials used for instruction were now developed locally,
with Filipino authors writing English materials intended for Filipino readers. Most

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

2 Allan B. I.
0 Bernardo
importantly, English was no longer the exclusive language of instruction. At this point,
Pilipino and other local languages were acknowledged to have important roles in the
education of Filipinos.

The nationalist uesistance to English

A stronger threat to the pre-eminence ofEnglish came during the late l960s with the rise
in the nationalist movement and of anti-imperialist, i.e., anti-colonial and anti-
American, sentiments. The use of English in the formal educational system became a
target for this movement, and the writings of nationalist scholar Renato Constantino
were particularly potent in crystallizing the negative attitudes towards the use of
English in schools. Constantino (l982: 6), wrote:
The first, and perhaps the master stroke in the plan to use education as an instrument of colonial
policy was the decision to use English as the medium of instruction. English became the wedge
that separated the Filipinos from their past and later was to separate educated Filipinos from the
masses of their countrymen. English introduced the Filipinos to a strange, new world. With
American textbooks, Filipinos started learning not only the new language but also a new way
of life, alien to their traditions . . . This was the beginning oftheir education. At the same time it was
the beginning of their miseducation.

This point of view was amended by other scholars who noted how the prevailing
educational system embodied not the Filipino ideals and character, but those of the
American colonial/imperialist agenda. The reported consequence of this was the develop-
ment ofFilipinos who thought in ways the Americans wanted them to think. For example,
Corpuz (l970: 70) wrote that: ‘The education process . . . rooted deep in the Filipino
mind a predisposition, in the resolution of political issues, to appreciate and
understand the American point of view.’
Proponents of a nationalist educational system advocated the total abandonment of
English as the medium of instruction because the continued use of English perpetuated a
colonial mindset among Filipinos. Proponents of this argument also advocated the
promotion of Pilipino as the language that would liberate the Filipino mind from its
colonial past and neo-colonial present (Melendrez-Cruz, l996).

The Bilingual Education Policy

According to Sibayan (l986), the advocates ofa nationalist educational system prodded
the Institute ofNational Language (INL) to propose that Pilipino be made the medium of
instruction at elementary level, and that English be abandoned as a medium ofinstruction.
The INL actually made a proposal to that effect to the National Board of Education
(NBE), but the proposal was rejected. However, a committee was formed to formulate
guidelines for the implementation of a policy of the NBE to develop ‘a bilingual nation
able to communicate in Pilipino as well as in English’. This committee came to be known as
the Soriano Committee, and its formulations became the blueprint for the Bilingual
Education Policy that was implemented in l974 (Department of Education, l974). The
Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) of l974 mandated the use of English and Pilipino as
media ofinstruction in elementary and high schools according to a set timetable. The goal
was to develop students’ language proficiencies in both languages. Two domains were
identified, and the subjects in the curriculum were divided into the English domain

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley’s questionable bequest 2l

(English communication arts, mathematics, science) and the Pilipino domain (all other
subjects including Pilipino communication arts, social studies, history).
In l985, after over a decade of its implementation, Gonzalez and Sibayan (l988)
conducted an extensive evaluation of the BEP. The evaluation was undertaken partly to
verify whether perceptions regarding the BEP (e.g., that it led to a decline in overall student
achievement) were true. Interestingly, in a significant number of schools, the BEP had not
been implemented even ten years after the policy had been promulgated. Questions can
be raised, therefore, as to whether the BEP was being implemented as planned. More
important, the findings of the study suggest that the shift to BEP did not result in any
significant gains or losses in overall student achievement. However, there were some
trends that suggested (l) the BEP benefited students from Tagalog-speaking regions,
including the National Capital Region, particularly those from the better private and public
schools, and (2) students educated under the BEP did better in social studies and worse in
English than the non-BEP students. The study asserted that the perceived deterioration of
student learning was probably due to factors like inadequate teacher training,
textbooks and learning materials, rather than the implementation of the policy itself.
Nevertheless, there was some evidence that the implementation of the BEP had
contributed to the decline in students’ proficiency in English.
In l987, the BEP was reiterated in a new policy by the Department of Education,
Culture, and Sports. Although the same provisions were stated in this new policy, the role
of the two languages in education was recast. In particular, Filipino was mandated to
be the language of literacy and the language of scholarly discourse, while English was
described as the international language and the non-exclusive language of science and
technology. Thus the role ofFilipino as the language oflearning and intellectual discourse
was emphasized, whereas the role of English was now more narrowly defined. The policy
also stipulated that higher education institutions should take the lead in
‘intellectualizing’ Filipino. However, even after all this recasting, nothing was changed
regarding the implementation of the policy at most levels of education.
In l99l, a report of the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) explicitly
recommended that all subjects, except English, be taught in Filipino at the elementary and
secondary levels. This recommendation was passionately debated in the various mass
media and in academic circles, but this specific recommendation remained unimplemented.
The most forceful move that would have effectively removed English from its privileged
position in Philippine education just did not come to pass.

Bilingual education in Philippine classuooms today

Today, it is possible to evaluate how English is used in Philippine schools by
referring to recent studies of the use of language in Philippine education. Brigham
and Castillo (l999) conducted the most recent one, and they found that the imple-
mentation of the BEP was flawed on many counts. Some of their observations include
the assertions that:
l. Language instruction in the Philippines, both in English and Filipino, emphasizes
mechanics, structures and rules of language, and neglects the more important functional,
creative, and communication skills.
2. Many Filipino teachers are not adequately prepared to teach in either English or Filipino.
In some cases, the language proficiency scores of the teachers were lower than those of their
pupils.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

2 Allan B. I.
2 Bernardo
3. There is a significant amount of resistance to the BEP; many teachers, students, and
administrators, particularly in big cities in the southern islands of the Philippines, prefer an
English-only policy for instruction. These sectors perceive that English is the language of
power, upward social and economic mobility, global communication and competitiveness
(Castillo, 2000).

Other attitudinal studies suggest an uncertain future for English, for Filipino, and for
bilingualism in the Philippine educational system, and different perceptions of the
importance of English in education exist in different parts of the country. Fuentes
and Mojica (l999) surveyed college students mainly from the Luzon area and found
that the students had more favorable attitudes towards English than Filipino, although
most of the students expressed positive attitudes towards using both languages for
instruction. The study suggests that students still value English, but that students also
favor bilingual education. Kobari’s (l999) survey of students from Cebu in the south
suggests a similar pattern. Students still overwhelmingly prefer English for most types
of academic activities, but there is a clear increase in their willingness to use Filipino
and Cebuano for certain activities. It seems that bilingual education has gained a wide
acceptance, but that, notwithstanding, there is still a clear preference for the use of
English in education. This preference seems to be largely based on the perceived
usefulness of English for learning, communication, and advancement.
Other researchers have investigated how English is actually taught and used in the
classrooms today, and how effective its use is. Vilches (2000) reports on classroom
observations, interviews with teachers, the analysis of English textbooks and lesson
plans, and other aspects of classroom practice. She suggests that many teachers’
questions and classroom discussion tend to be at the most basic level of literal
comprehension, and that teachers often fail to employ the kinds of effective teaching
methodologies that would evoke higher-level analytical and critical skills among their
students. Vilches also reports that teachers tend to dominate the activities in the
classroom (i.e., students have low levels of involvement), and that this prevents
students from learning independently or interactively. Moreover, teachers tend to
rely on traditional presentation/practice structure in teaching language rules, and
demand mostly mechanical repetition and memorization from the students. Vilches
summarizes the implications of these observations quite succinctly thus: ‘English
language teaching in the Philippine secondary schools needs to be more consciously
veered away from its tendency to make teaching an end in itself, forgetting that it is
just a means to facilitating learning’ (2000: ll). It does seem that the way English is
being taught in schools does not allow students to learn how to use the English
language effectively to communicate and engage ideas in a more intellectually sophis-
ticated manner.
Sibayan (2000) also takes a pessimistic view about the current consequences ofbilingual
education in the Philippines. In particular, he laments that the flawed implementation of
the BEP has unintentionally produced ‘semilinguals’, which he defines as individuals who
have inadequate command of English and Filipino and inadequate command or knowl-
edge of subject matter content in the two languages (2000: 253). Sibayan argues that these
semilinguals include those who have dropped out from basic education, many of those who
completed high school and college education, and even many teachers in elementary,
secondary, and tertiary schools.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley’s questionable bequest 2
3
The unuesolved issue
Presently, the medium ofinstruction issue has not yet been resolved, the l987 reiteration
of the BEP notwithstanding. When in l999, the Department of Education, Culture, and
Sports floated the idea of using three vernacular languages (Tagalog-based Filipino,
Ilocano, and Cebuano) in the early grades, the matter was fiercely debated in the different
mass media. Although English still enjoys a privileged status in Philippine education,
the recurring debates on this issue suggest that the pre-eminence of English is by no
means unassailable. More than one hundred years after the establishment of English-
medium education by the Americans, the Philippine educational system still appears
unsure whether to either accept or reject the McKinley bequest.

COMPETING AGENDA, COMPETING DISCOURSES

As it is with many burning social issues, the medium of instruction issue in the
Philippines continues to stay lit, as different stakeholders in this issue have adopted
and advocated discourses that are (mindfully or unmindfully) consistent with their own
social agenda. In this section of the paper, I attempt to draw attention to the competing
discourses and agenda that underpin different positions regarding a medium of instruction
issue in general, and the role ofEnglish in Philippine education in particular. I note at least
three themes underlying arguments for the exclusive and/or strengthened use of English in
Philippine education: (l) the use of English for social integration and/or control, (2) the
utility of English in the economic and intellectual domains, and (3) the pragmatic
difficulties of shifting away from English. On the other hand, I see at least two themes
underlying arguments for the abandonment and/or the diminished use of English in
Philippine education: (4) the colonizing power of English, and (5) the damaging effects of
English on learning.

English fou social integuation and/ou contuol

The American colonial government explicitly stated that English was preferred over the
other local languages as it could serve as a means ofunifying the ethnolinguistically diverse
Filipino people. Even today, a similar argument is heard, i.e. that the use of English as a
teaching medium serves as a unifying element in forestalling debates about which
Philippine languages might best serve as media of instruction, an historically contentious
debate.
But has English actually united the Filipino people? Some scholars have answered yes,
and some no. Wurfel (l988: 24), for example, argues that the introduction of the American
colonial educational system in English developed a Filipino national identity of ‘a
variety inoffensive to the colonial masters’. Constantino (l974), however, suggests that
among Filipino people, there is a disparity between national identity and national
consciousness. While most Filipinos in the different regions of the country identify
themselves with a common nationality there is still no shared consciousness or sense of
‘oneness’ that arises from sharing the same aspirations, responses, and actions. Instead, it
seems that many Filipinos today share the aspirations, responses, and actions of their
American colonizers. In this regard, some scholars (e.g., Enriquez and Protacio-Marcelino,
l984; Ordon˜ez, l999; San Juan, l998) argue that the use of English and the American
colonial educational system might have been too successful in unifying the Filipino
people. For them, the
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
2 Allan B. I.
4 Bernardo
Filipino people were unified through the development of a colonized attitude towards
the United States, the English language, and the American point of view. One so
entrenched that such attitudes persist more than 50 years after independence from the
USA. The argument to maintain English as medium of instruction is therefore also an
argument for maintaining neo-colonialism (see also Tupas, this issue).

The utility of English

Another set of overt arguments for maintaining English as medium of instruction
relate to the perceived advantage of English (over Filipino and all other local languages)
as a medium for intellectual pursuits, for international communication, for economic
advance- ment, especially in the current globalizing world environment. From the
beginning of the American colonial educational system, it was already argued that
English would be the better medium to allow Filipinos access to the knowledge of
civilizations. At present, similar arguments are still advocated, as most knowledge in
various domains oflearning is documented in the English language. This is particularly true
at the most advanced levels ofthe scholarly and scientific disciplines (Gonzalez, 2000). The
argument is that, compared to all local languages, English is much more intellectualized
and is thus more appropriate for use in the domains of higher education, science and
technology.
In addition to being the language of intellectual pursuits, English is also the language
used in most ofthe ‘controlling domains’ in the Philippine setting (Gonzalez, this volume).
Sibayan (l994a) defines controlling domains as the domains of power and prestige, and the
domains that control the national and individual lives of people. In the Philippines,
these include (l) government administration, (2) legislation, (3) the judicial system, (4)
business, commerce, and industry, (5) the professions, (6) mass media, and the two
domains mentioned earlier (7) higher education, and (8) science and technology. In
nearly all of these domains, the institutions, structures, and processes require that one be
proficient in English (Gonzalez, Bernardo, Bautista, and Pascasio, 2000; Sibayan, l994a). It
makes sense, therefore, that schools should try to develop English language proficiencies
among Filipino students, as long as English is so important to such domains. That
English is the language used in these domains is, of course, related to the colonial
project of the Americans. For half a century, institutions, systems, and processes were set
up using English (in some cases a shift from Spanish was involved, Sibayan, l994a). There
was no concurrent effort to develop the use of any of the local languages in these domains,
which makes it very difficult to undertake a shift to Filipino or any of the local languages
even to this day.
Another strong force supports the maintenance of English in the controlling domains,
and this force is globalization and its various manifestations. As national boundaries
are more easily transgressed for purposes of trade, as labor markets become more global,
and as new communication and information technologies make information access,
utilization, and exchange more efficient across countries, the need for a single language to
facilitate these transactions becomes stronger. English has become the pre-eminent
language for this purpose (Doronila, l994; Gonzalez, 2000). Maintaining and
strengthening English language education becomes most crucial if viewed in this
context.

The puagmatic difficulties in shifting away fuom English

Even those who strongly advocate the use of Filipino or the vernaculars for
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
 McKinley’s questionable bequest 2
5
instruction acknowledge that there are very practical difficulties in implementing such a
policy. Even

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

2 Allan B. I.
6 Bernardo
during the era of the American colonial government, pragmatic difficulties prevented
attempts to shift the medium of instruction from English to the local languages. In
particular, there was concern about both the American teachers’ inability to teach
using the local languages and the lack of local teachers who could teach in local
vernaculars, as well as the absence oftextbooks and other learning materials in the local
languages. There was also a concern that the local languages were not intellectualized
enough to afford access to the wealth of knowledge at that time.
As the educational system and processes in English became even more entrenched
over the years, these difficulties persisted and even intensified. For example, although
Filipinos eventually gained qualifications to teach, their credentials were earned by going
through the colonial educational system in English. As successful products of the system
that was in place, it was unlikely that they would depart from the established practices of
that system. As the formal school system expanded with the increase in population, the
problems of producing learning materials in local languages were huge. As knowledge in
the various domains of learning rapidly expanded in the last century, the task of making
translations of these materials became increasingly unmanageable. These difficulties
persist to the present day, and have been compounded by the effects of globalization.
Indeed, the shift from English to Filipino or any of the local languages would have to
involve all of the following: (l) the massive translation of the literature in different
domains of learning, (2) the continuous long-term development, formalization, and
standardization of the local language systems for scholarly purposes, (3) the development,
experimentation, and evaluation ofpedagogies involving the use oflocal languages, (4) the
extensive and systematic training and re-training of teachers in the use of local languages
for instruction, (5) the massive production and evaluation of textbooks and other learning
materials, (6) the preparation oftesting and evaluation systems in the local languages, and
(7) the sustained dissemination of public information to gain acceptance of the shift,
among others (Congressional Commission on Education, l99l; Sibayan, l989, l99l,
l994b). This is clearly a daunting task. So much so that some have proposed that at
least a hundred years would be needed to effectively meet such goals (Sibayan, l999). For
many, the efforts needed to realize an effective shift to using local languages are just
too overwhelming, and therefore English has to be retained by default.
The colonizing poweu of English
The very arguments used to justify the maintenance of English in education become the
arguments for proposing the repudiation of English when the supposed benefits are
assessed from the perspectives of those who are least likely to benefit from the utility
of English. For example, as discussed earlier, the noble goal of social integration from a
colonial perspective means social control and subjugation of diverse communities in order
to align their perspectives and actions with the agenda of the colonizers. As Constantino
(l982: l9) asserts, the use of English was instrumental in the ‘mis-education’ of
Filipinos: ‘education saw to it that the Filipino mind was subservient to that of the
master.’ Therefore, the use of English as medium of instruction (and as language in the
controlling domains) should be ceased so as to avert the continuous subjugation ofthe
Filipinos within the colonial/post-colonial dynamics. With the renunciation of English,
liberation of the Filipino people from their colonial/post-colonial ties can begin
(Enriquez and Protacio- Marcelino, l984; Melendrez-Cruz, l996).
In a similar recasting ofthe arguments for the utility of the English language, advocates

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley’s questionable bequest 2
7
in favor of the rejection of English observe that the supposed intellectual, social and
economic advantages gained with English proficiency are actually largely restricted to the
sectors of Philippine society who are already privileged (Tupas, 200l, this issue). Accord-
ing to Sibayan and Gonzalez (l996: l49), socioeconomic status ‘is the most significant and
influential factor in gaining access to competence in English through the schools’.
Tupas (200l: l5) asserts: ‘those who attain near-native competence in the language
because of excellent education belong to the top five percent of the population and usually
come from Metro Manila and other urban centers of the country.’ On the other hand,
those coming from the middle socioeconomic class ‘learn English in less-than-ideal
circumstances, have a short pre-university learning experience of l0 years . . . and for
the most part attain a passive competence in English . . . These are the ones chosen by a
social selection process to occupy lower-level positions in business establishments and
shop-floor jobs’ (Sibayan and Gonzalez, l996: l5l). Finally, the poor are severely limited
in their access to education, much less to quality education in the English language. I f
they do manage to finish secondary schooling, they enter the poorest quality colleges,
end up speaking imperfect English, risk failing the professional licensure examinations
(which are given in English), and end up with low paying, low level jobs if they manage
to gain employment at all. As Sibayan and Gonzalez noted, only a small minority of the
poor actually become socially mobile in this context.
It does not seem, therefore, that maintaining English as the medium of instruction
affords the opportunities for intellectual and economic advancement as purported.
Instead, the opportunities for advancement seem to be largely restricted to those who
already enjoy social and economic advantages in Philippine society (Gonzalez, l980).
Because of the poor quality of the public education system, the overwhelming majority of
the poor simply are deprived of access to the quality of English language education that is
needed to gain these opportunities for advancement. As Tollefson (l99l: l39) has
suggested, English might not be a solution to the poverty experienced by some children,
instead it may actually be part of the cause of their poverty.

The damaging effects of English on leauning

Among the different arguments for or against maintaining English as the medium of
instruction, the arguments that are underpinned by the most consistent empirical evidence
relate to the damaging effects of English on Filipino student learning. The earliest
evaluations ofthe American colonial educational system in the Philippines already pointed
to the problems of using a foreign language in establishing literacy and basic knowledge.
Empirical studies comparing the use of the vernacular to that of English in the l940s
and l950s clearly showed that students studying in English were not learning as much as
they could if they were studying in their mother tongue (Ramos, Aguilar, and Sibayan,
l967). Presently, more and more empirical studies indicate the benefits of using the
vernacular (and thus, the disadvantages of using English) in establishing basic literacy and
learning competencies (e.g., Baguingan, 2000; de Guzman, l998; Dekker, l999;
Errington, l999), even in the more conceptual levels ofdisciplines that are widely
perceived to be best taught in English (e.g., Bernardo, l999, 2000, 2002; Espiritu and
Villena, l996; Reyes, 2000). Indeed, the use of one’s native tongue to learn is the most
intuitive and natural option in nearly all sovereign countries, so much so that hardly
anyone thinks it should be otherwise. In this regard, one may wonder why there is even
a need for empirical research on what is rather obvious for most people. Constantino
(l982: l2) asserts that ‘so great is our
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
2 Allan B. I.
8 Bernardo
disorientation caused by our colonial education that the use of our own language is a
controversial issue, with more Filipinos against than in favor!’
The consistent findings ofempirical research ofthis issue converge with commonly-held
intuitions and point to several interrelated conclusions. First, students learn better in their
mother tongue. Second, students do not learn as well in English; in some cases, they do
not learn at all. Third, using English as the medium of instruction in some subject
areas prevents students from learning as much as they could if the mother tongue were
used. In some cases, specific obstacles to learning are clearly associated with difficulties
with the English language. Fourth, the ones who will benefit most from education in the
English language are those who have good levels of proficiency in English to begin with
and/or those who grow up in environments where English language inputs, materials,
and resources are abundant.
The last conclusion resonates very well with an earlier theme – that the supposed utility
of English is actually available only to those who already enjoy advantages, and that
maintenance of English merely serves to widen the gap between those who have and have
not these advantages. And here lies the most harmful long-term effect on learning of
maintaining English as the medium ofinstruction. The small proportion ofthe
population who have easily acquired English language proficiencies in their enriched
milieu will have the best chances of learning in the various domains taught in English. They
will have an ever-widening array of options available for further education, even in
foreign countries. But the overwhelming majority ofthe population, who will forever
struggle with English as a foreign language, will likely find their limited proficiencies in
English a major stumbling block to learning in the various domains of knowledge. They
are the ones who are most likely to feel alienated by the rarefied atmosphere of the
classroom where they are obligated to speak in English. They are those most likely to
fail in examinations and writing requirements in English, to perceive much of formal
education as irrelevant, and to drop out of school altogether.

PROSPECTS FOR ENGLISH IN PHILIPPINE EDUCATION

The above themes comprise much of the competing discourse on the medium of
instruction issue in general, and the role of English in Philippine education in particular.
Depending on the position being advocated, proponents co-opt specific arguments within
the various themes to state their case. As each of these arguments can be quite compelling
in its own way to specific sectors of Philippine society, it is no wonder that the issue of
language in education has never been resolved. Presently, English is still the principal
language of instruction in Philippine formal education. This status is maintained by
discourses that emphasize the role of English in integrating an ethnolinguistically diverse
nation, in gaining access to intellectual and socioeconomic advancement, particularly in a
global cultural and economic environment. The difficulties involved in shifting from
English to the local languages for instruction are also underscored. But past shifts in the
language of education policy responded to strong arguments and empirical evidence that
English had failed as a language for developing national identity and national
conscious- ness, and as a language for effective learning, particularly at the most
critical stages of basic education. Today, the failure of English is particularly felt by
the overwhelming majority ofFilipinos who live in environments where English is an alien
language and who go to schools that provide poor quality education in English.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

Puagmatic multilingualism in education
Most recently, some educators and policymakers seem to have formed a consensus on a
pragmatic compromise that addresses many of the arguments raised by the various
competing discourses on this question. This consensus can be discerned from the most recent
recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER, 2000). The
key PCER recommendation on the medium of instruction issue is labeled ‘Expanding the
options for medium of instruction for the first grade’ and states:
The Bilingual Education Curriculum prescribed by DECS shall be the minimum standard to be
followed by all schools . . . However, schools can more flexibly adopt a mix of more Filipino and/or
English depending on the capabilities and needs of students. (2000: 64)

In addition, two other specific reforms were suggested:

Where applicable, i.e., where there exists a strong support system, use the regional lingua franca or
vernacular as . . . (medium ofinstruction) for Grade l. The subjects ‘Good Manners and Right Conduct’
and Sibika shall be taught in the regional lingua franca. English and Filipino shall be taught as
separate subjects.
For Grade 2 and up, the BEP will be applied, i.e., the subjects Science and Mathematics will be
taught in English, with the rest of the courses to be taught in Filipino. However, Science and
Mathematics may be taught in Filipino provided that there will be strong support for the writing of
instructional materials in Filipino and intense training of Science and Mathematics teachers in Filipino.

These suggestions for reform represent substantial improvements over the original BEP
which simply defined which subjects should be taught in English and in Filipino. The PCER
proposals acknowledge the multilingualism inherent in the experience o f most Filipinos today
(unlike the BEP which seems to assume bilingualism rather than multi- lingualism), where
different contexts and experiences require the use of the vernacular, Filipino, English, and
even some other dialects. Moreover, the proposals clearly under- score the important role
ofthe mother tongue in establishing early literacy and learning in the various subject areas, in
learning a second and third language, and also the importance of learning in the early years
in establishing the foundational knowledge upon which all future learning will be scaffolded.
The proposal also recognizes how language difficulties in Filipino and in English can
contribute to problems in learning and to dropping out of school. Finally, the proposals
clearly indicate a more reasonable understanding of the requirements for effective instruction
in any language as regards the preparation of instructional materials and training of
teachers (PCER, 2000: ll6–l23; Castillo, 2000).
The preceding observations indicate that the arguments regarding the harmful effects of
English on learning, as well as the pragmatic problems for shifting to Filipino and/or the
vernacular, were noted. The PCER Report (2000: 64, l23) also states that English shall be
maintained and even strengthened in schools, thus also showing that the arguments for the
importance of English in Philippine society are acknowledged. The report seems to
embody a pragmatic compromise that takes into consideration some key elements of the
issues and situates these within a reasonable appraisal of the realities of formal education in
the Philippine context.
The report, however, does not directly address the more social and ideological argu-
ments for or against the role of English in Philippine education. In particular, the report
makes no explicit reference to any of the