Republic of the Philippines

BACOLOD CITY COLLEGE

Taculing Road, Bacolod City, 6100, Email: bacolodcitycollege@yahoo.com
Taculing Campus, (034)707-7469, Sum-ag Campus, (034) 704-5843,
Fortune Towne Campus, (034) 704-5844
Tel #: (034) 707-7469

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

MTB-MLE: CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY FOR THE MOTHER TONGUE

STUDY GUIDE NO. 3
Legal Bases of MTB - MLE

COURSE This course includes both the content and the pedagogy of the mother tongue as well
DESCRIPTION: as its underlying theoretical assumptions and frameworks that support its being a
foundation for learning of the additional languages of Filipino and English and
developing stronger literacy skills of learners. The subject matter content includes the
structure of the mother tongue as a language, literature in the mother tongue, methods
and techniques of teaching the language, development of instructional materials and
assessment. Ultimately, the course will develop prospective teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge of the mother tongue which is necessary for the effective
implementation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)
Program of the Department of Education.
INSTRUCTOR: MELITO A. SAMODIO JR.
CLASS: BEED 2A & BEED 2B
DISCLAIMER: This learning material was designed and developed to assist pre-service teachers and
students taking up Teacher Education and help them achieve the specified standards
set by Commission on Higher Education for them to become competent teachers. Most
of the content was just borrowed from different books, materials and websites. They
were adapted and compiled for educational purposes and the author of this module
doesn’t claim ownership over them.
OVERVIEW:
This chapter will discuss the legal and educational arguments for MTB-MLE program
implementation in the Philippines. After reading this material, you will also learn how to analyze policies,
surveys, and studies affecting the language instruction.
INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

After learning this module, students can:

1. Trace the legal and educational arguments for MTB-MLE program implementation in the
Philippines.
2. Discuss the role of teachers and the necessary competencies to ensure the successful
implementation of the program.

DISCUSSION:

Legal Bases, National Surveys, DepEd Policies and Experimental Studies on MTB-MLE

What is legal basis?

Legal basis refers to the foundation or framework upon which laws and regulations are established
and implemented. It provides the authority and justification for the existence and enforcement of legal
rules and policies. The legal basis can vary depending on the specific context and jurisdiction.
What is a law?

A law is a rule or set of rules for good behavior which is considered right and important by most
people for moral, religious, or emotional reasons. Listed below are some of the laws, policies, and
experimental studies on MTB-MLE implementation.

The document divides the history of the Philippine education into five period as follows:

1. Period of Orientation and Organization with Spanish and American regimes – Act No. 74
established a Department of Public Instruction.
2. Period of the Commonwealth – Filipinization of the educational system.
3. Period of the Japanese regime – the Department of Education and Culture was renamed to
Department of Education, Health, and Public Welfare.
4. Period of the Republic – Executive Order No. 94 renamed the Department of Public Instruction
to Department of Education. Secretary Manuel V. Gallego was the first secretary of education.
5. Period of Reorganization – mandated in Presidential Decree No. 1 issued on September 24,
1972.

History records the important laws affecting education in 1901.

▪ Act No. 74 enacted on January 21, 1901 establishing a Department of Public instruction in the
Philippine islands.
▪ Act No. 180 enacted on July 24, 1901 providing for the division of the archipelago into school
divisions.
▪ Act No. 22 enacted on September 6, 1901 providing for the organization of the interior, commerce,
and policies of finance and justice and of public instruction.
▪ In June 20, 1953, Republic Act No. 896 was enacted declaring the Policy on Elementary Education
in the Philippines.
▪ In June 16, 1954, Republic Act No. 1124 was enacted creating a Board of National Education
charged with the duty of “formulating General Education Policies and Directing the Educational
Interests of the Nation”. The journey on language issues and debates on the use of vernacular,
Pilipino or Filipino, starts here.

I. Monroe Survey (1924-1925)

Paul Monroe and his associates conducted a survey of Philippine education from 1924 to 1925
which highlighted the struggle of the country “to create a modern educational system”. The greatest
difficulty they encounter is overcoming the “foreign language handicapped”. Monroe survey
characterized this handicap as a serious obstacle to success in teaching. A quarter-century ago, the officials
who undertook to solve the Philippine problem concluded that the greatest need of the people was
unifying language.

II. 1935 Constitution

This 1935 Constitution provided for a national language based on one of the Philippine languages.
On December 30, 1973, Manuel L. Quezon issued Executive Order No. 134 designating Tagalog as basis of
the national language. The choice was recommended by the National Language Institute, created by
Commonwealth Act No. 184 on November 13, 1936 chaired by Jaime C. de Veyra, a speaker of Waray (the
language of Samar and Leyte). Through this act “the teaching of the National Language became
obligatory”. It was first offered as a subject in SY 1939-1940 in the public schools. In 1940, Commonwealth
Act No. 570 mandated the Filipino National Language.
III. Educational Act of 1940

Another development was the shortening of the elementary curriculum from seven to six years in
order to admit more children of school age. The Educational Act of 1940 also called as “Educational Magna
Carta of the Philippines” provided for the system of public elementary education and its matter of
financing. Under the said act, attendance for primary grades became compulsory, nationalization of the
support of the elementary grades, except those in chartered cities.
On April 12, 1940 President Quezon issued Executive Order No. 263 requiring the teaching of the
National Language in the senior year of all high schools and in all teacher training institutions. On June 7,
1940, the Tagalog-based national language, referred to as Filipino National Language, was declared the
official language through Commonwealth Act No. 570 effective July 4, 1946.
In the intervening period of the Japanese occupation (1941-1943), no official action took place, but
English was supplanted subtly but not successfully by Niponggo, so the national language developed and
flourished through wider usage.

IV. 1948 Joint Congressional Committee on Education

In 1948, the Joint Congressional Committee on Education conducted a study on secondary schools
and concluded that the secondary education was the “weakest link in the Philippine educational system.”
The committee recommended the establishment of different types of secondary schools for different areas:
1. Community high schools in rural and urban sections
2. Industrial vocational secondary schools in urban and thickly populated centers
3. Secondary schools in strategic centers to prepare young people for colleges/universities

In 1950, the UNESCO Educational mission recommended “that greater emphasis should be given
to education for economic productivity.” The 2-2 plan was tried out in three secondary schools
namely Bayanhay High School, Leyte High School, and Davao City High School – on experimental
basis.

V. Prator Report

In 1950, Dr. C.H. Prator narrated a “disheartening experience” on his visits to the rural schools.
Here is the excerpt from his report:

It is indeed a disheartening experience to visit a barrio school in the islands, see this average
child, sense his many imperative needs, but find him devoting most of his efforts to learning a distorted
smattering of a language (English) for which he has little need in which he will probably soon forget.
The Philippine school system has too precious a time to permit the continued acceptance of such an extra
burden without at least an attempt being made to find some way to avoid it.
Aware of the difficulties encountered in the use of second language as medium of instruction
the moment children enter school and knowing fully well that the attainment of functional literacy is
much delayed because of this language problem, the committee had the following proposals.
1. In Grade 1 and 2, the native language or vernacular is used as a medium of instruction. The
Filipino and the English languages are introduced informally.
2. In Grades 3 and 4, the vernacular is still used as medium of instruction and increased time
allotments are given to English and the Filipino language.
3. In Grades 5 and 6, English is the medium of instruction. The Filipino language, besides
being a subject, is also used as medium of instruction in social studies.
4. English is given increasing periods from Grade 1 to Grade 4 in preparation for its use as the
medium of instruction in Grades 5 and 6.
 In urban areas with cosmopolitan population, English should be used as the medium of
instruction in Grades 3 and 4 to give those who drop out after Grade 4 a working knowledge of the
language.

VI. 1948-1954 Schools Division Experiment

▪ Iloilo Experiment

In Iloilo, Superintendent J.V. Aguilar observed that “the masses are left in ignorance even in their
vernacular … He initiated an experiment in Iloilo (1948-1954) with the use of Hiligaynon as a medium
of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. The results of the experiment in its fifth year revealed that the
experimental group proved superior in reading, arithmetic, and social studies in which the differences
between the mean achievements of the experimental and control groups were statistically significant.

▪ 1953-1960 Rizal Experiment

The Division of Rizal was involved in a six-year experimental project jointly sponsored by the
Philippine Center for Language Study and the Bureau of Public Schools from 1953 – 1960. The
experimental scheme was prepared by Dr. Frederick B. Davis with the following objectives:
1. To determine whether, for developing proficiency in English among Tagalog-speaking
children in Grades 1, 2 and 3, it is more efficient to introduce reading activities in English on
Grades 1 and 2.
2. To determine whether, for proficiency learning of the subject matter content of social studies,
mathematics, science, and English among Tagalog – speaking children in Grades 1 through 6,
it is most efficient to:
a. begin using English as MOI at the beginning of Grade 1
b. shift from Tagalog to English at the beginning of Grade 5

Conclusion:
1. The vernacular Tagalog is a more effective medium of instruction in reading, arithmetic,
and social studies in Grade 1 than English.
2. The use of vernacular (Tagalog) as a medium of instruction is more productive of results
in teaching children to read than the use of English.
3. Tagalog is more conducive to the development of the ability of first grade children to
compute and solve arithmetic problems.
4. The pupils in the experimental group are superior to those in the control group in social
studies.

VII. 1957 – Swanson Survey

A survey of the public schools of the Philippines, generally known as the Swanson Report, was
conducted by a group of American professors under the leadership of Prof. J. Chester Swanson aided by
Filipino officials of the Bureau of Public Schools.
The findings and recommendations of the Swanson report included the “teaching of a language
which pointed to the great advantage” of children in Tagalog-speaking regions who learn only one new
language in Grades 1 and 2 over children in non-Tagalog speaking provinces who have to learn new
languages, English and Tagalog. The difficulty in the second case is enhanced by the absence of
instructional materials in the vernacular.
The Swanson report stated that the deterioration of English teaching can be overcome by an
improved instructional program, by increasing the time allotted for English in Grade 1 to 40 minutes and
in Grade 2 to 50 minutes, by having better English teachers, and by encouraging the use of English outside
the classroom.
 The first major revamp of the educational system involving changes in the elementary and high
school levels per recommendation of the Swanson team was implemented by the Board of National
Education beginning with School Year 1957-1958.

VIII. 1970 – The Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE)

In 1970, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) chaired by Dr.
Onofre D. Corpuz made a comprehensive study on the language of instruction with action taken on the
recommendations by the Board of National Education as follows:
1. Filipino will be the main language of instruction at the elementary level with provision for the
use of vernacular languages in Grades 1 and 2.
2. Filipino and English be the languages of instruction at the secondary and higher levels.
3. In Tagalog-speaking areas, Filipino be used as a language of instruction from Grade 1.
4. In non-Tagalog speaking areas, the language of instruction be the dominant vernacular in
Grades 1 and 2, with Pilipino as an auxiliary medium and be taught as a language subject. In
Grades 3 and 4 the transition to be made to Filipino as the language of instruction, with the
vernacular as an auxiliary.
5. From Grade 5 onwards, Pilipino be the medium of instruction in all elementary schools.
6. Intensive teacher education program be introduced, both pre-service and in-service to train
each in the use Pilipino and the vernacular languages as media of instruction.
7. English be taught as a double-subject second language beginning in Grade 5.
8. The teaching of English be intensified in the sixth year of schooling.
9. Materials be prepared on the teaching of English in Grades 5 and 6.

IX. 1973 Philippine Constitution

The 1973 Constitution mandated in Article XIV, (Section 3, no. 2 and 3) to wit:

Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution states:

2. The National assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common
national language to be known as Filipino.
3. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.

In 1973, the National Board of Education in NBE Resolution No. 73 – 7, s. 1973 “declared that it
was the policy of the government to use two languages of instruction – Filipino and English.

X. 1974 Bilingual Education Policy

The BEP mandated the use of English and Pilipino (changed to Filipino in the 1987 Constitution)
as media of instruction in Philippine primary and secondary schools according to a set of timetables. “The
purpose of the policy was for the Philippines to become a bilingual nation, competent in both Pilipino
and English.” The BEP was intended to advance learning in all subjects; propagate Filipino as a language
of literacy, as well as a source of identity and national unity; and promote English as the language of
science and technology, of regional commerce and of international communication.
Under the BEP, domains were divided into an English domain (English Communication Arts,
Mathematics, Science) and a Filipino domain (all other subjects) beginning in Grade 1 for Tagalog
speaking areas in School Year 1974-1975 and beginning in Grade 1 for non-Tagalog speaking areas in
School Year 1978—1979. By the School Year 1981-1982, the shift of medium was to begin in all high
schools. No definite timetable or program was prescribed for tertiary level institutions except that by
School Year 1983-1984, graduates from colleges and universities were supposed to be able to pass
examinations in English and/or Pilipino for the practice of their profession.
 By the bilingual education policy, Filipino is the medium of instruction in schools for all subjects
except natural science and mathematics for which English is used. There is, however, a reported move to
replace English with Filipino for teaching the two subjects, whereby English will be relegated to a foreign
language in the curriculum. The possible adoption of this scheme has intensified the controversy over
Filipino, not only as a medium of instruction, but also as the national language.

XI. 1987 Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Constitution mandates, to wit:

Section 6. The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further
developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.

Subject to the provision of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the Government
shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official
communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.

Section 7. For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines
are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.

The regional languages are the auxiliary media of instruction therein.

Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

Section 8. This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into
major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

Section 9. The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representative of
various regions and discipline which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote research for
the development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.

The 1987 Constitution has essentially the same provision on the national language, hence the same
argument is still used, viz., the non-existence of Filipino. However, that Constitution also stipulates the
creation of a new language body which was duly created and called the Komisyon ng Wikang Pilipino.
In 1992, the Komisyon defined Filipino as “that native language spoken and written in Metro
Manila, the National Capital Region, and other urban centers in the archipelago, which is used as the
language of communication between ethnic groups. “Filipino is further characterized as being “in the
process of development through loans from Philippine and non-native languages.

XII. 1991 Congressional Oversight Committee on Education (EDCOM)

The language issue in education was highlighted by EDCOM in 1994 in its comprehensive report
on The Language Issue in Education, herein quoted:

On August 13, 1959 when Order No. 7 by the Department of Education named the national
language – Pilipino. In time, opponents of the 1935 constitutionally mandated language labelled Pilipino
as Tagalog, therefore, not the supposedly Tagalog-based national language. When the 1973 Constitution
was ratified, it provided that the national language was to be based on Philippine languages (i.e., not just
Tagalog) and labelled it Filipino.
EDCOM recommended “the adoption of policy guidelines for a language of instruction
development to optimize and accelerate learning. It recommended measures “to pave the way for Filipino
becoming the medium of instruction by the year 2000. “The committee further recommended that English
be used in the teaching of English itself and that “in Grade 4, Filipino shall be the medium of instruction
for all subjects, except English, until the fourth year of secondary education.”

XIII. 1998 The Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS and the Presidential Commission on
Educational Reform)

The PESS was a joint study by the Philippine government, the Asian Development Bank, and the
World Bank. PESS recommendation focused on strengthening teacher competencies through in-service
training and expanding options for medium of instruction in Grade 1using regional lingua franca or the
vernacular.
The PCER was created by Executive Order No. 46 with the express mandate to define a budget –
feasible program of reform and identify executive priority policy recommendation and items for a
legislative agenda on education.
The PCER recommended “expanding the options for the medium of instruction in Grade 1
through the use of the Regional Lingua Franca or the vernacular.” While reaffirming the Bilingual
Education Policy and the improvement in the teaching of English and Filipino, PCER Proposal No. 7 aims
to introduce the use of the regional lingua franca or vernacular as medium of instruction in Grade 1. PCER
cited that studies have shown that “this change will make students stay in, rather than drop out of school,
learn better, quicker, and more permanently and will in fact be able to use the first language as a bridge
to more effective learning in English and Filipino.

XIV. 1999 – Lingua Franca Educational Project – DECS memorandum No. 144, s. 1999

The memorandum has the following provisions:

1. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports is embarking on a pilot study called Lingua
Franca Education Project in SY 1999-2000 which aims to define and implement a national
bridging program from the vernacular to Filipino and later English to develop initial literacy
for use in public schools. Through the bridging program, an alternative curriculum will be
used in acquiring basic literacy and numeracy skills with the local lingua franca as the
language of instruction.

2. The pilot study will involve two Grade 1 classes from each of the sixteen (16) regions. One will
be the experimental class and the other the control class.

3. Two (2) Grade 1 teachers from each of the experimental schools, together with the principal,
will undergo training before the pilot study. One teacher will handle the Grade 1 experimental
class while the other will be the alternate. If there is only one Grade 1 teacher in the school, the
Grade 2 teacher will be the alternate.

The Lingua Franca for use in the pilot study was as follows:

Regions I, II, CAR – Ilocano

Regions III, IV, V, VI, VI, XII, ARMM, NCR – Tagalog
Regions VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, CARAGA – Cebuano

XV. DepEd Order #74 s. 2009 – Institutionalizing the Use of MTB-MLE

In 2009, DepEd released Department Order No. 74 mandating the use of mother tongue as the
medium of instruction during the first four years (kindergarten – Grade 3) of primary education while
students learn Filipino and English as subject areas.
 The said DepEd Order established a framework that provides curricular guidance of teachers,
school managers, instructional quality assurance for teachers and other educational leaders. To provide
a strong MTBMLE program, there are Ten Fundamental Requirements needed according to DepEd Order
74, s. 2009. These are:
1. A working orthography (alphabet and spelling) for the local language that is acceptable to
most of the stakeholders and promotes intellectualization of that language.
2. Development, production, and distribution of inexpensive instructional materials with special
priority to beginning reading and children’s literature.
3. The use of the learner’s first language (L1) as the primary medium of instruction from pre-
school until at least Grade 3.
4. Mother tongue or the first language (L1) as a subject and a language for teaching and learning
will be introduced in Grade 1 for conceptual understanding.
5. The inclusion of additional languages such as Filipino or English and other local or foreign
languages shall be introduced as separate subjects in a carefully planned pacing programs.
6. In the secondary level, Filipino and English shall be the primary medium of instruction (MOI).
The learner’s L1 shall still be utilized as an auxiliary medium of instruction.
7. Other than English, Filipino or Arabic for Madaris schools, the choice of additional languages
shall be upon the choice of parents and endorsed by local stakeholders.
8. The language of instruction (teaching) shall also be the primary language for testing.
9. There should be a continuing teachers’ training in partnership with MLE specialists on the use
of L1 as language of instruction to facilitate learning.
10. Ensured maximum participation and support from Local Government Units (LGU), parents,
and community for the implementation of language and literacy program strategy.

XVI. R.A. 10157 – The Kindergarten Education Act of 2012

With RA 10157, “An Act Institutionalizing Kindergarten Education into the Basic Education
System”, teachers shall use mother tongue as medium of instruction in developing the competencies for
kindergarten learners. DepEd Order 31 S. 2012, or the "Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 10157, otherwise known as the Kindergarten Education Act," outlines the
guidelines for the implementation of the Kindergarten Education program in all public schools in the
Philippines. The purpose of this order is to ensure that every Filipino child is provided with a solid
foundation for lifelong learning and success.
In support to RA 10157, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2012 –
Guidelines on the Implementation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). In
effect, starting SY 2012-2013, Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual education (MTB-MLE) shall be
implemented in all public schools, specifically in kindergarten, Grades 1, 2, and 3 as part of the K to 12
Basic Education Program. The MTB-MLE shall support the goal of “Every Child-A-Reader and A-Writer
by Grade 1”.
The following twelve (12) major languages or Lingua Franca were utilized as language of
instruction and were offered as a learning area for SY 2012-2013:

1. Tagalog 5. Bikol 9. Tausug

2. Kapampangan 6. Cebuano 10. Maguindanaoan
3. Pangasinense 7. Hiligaynon 11. Maranao
4. Iloko 8. Waray 12. Chabacano

XVII. RA 10533 – Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013

The enhanced basic education program encompasses at least one (1) year of kindergarten, six (6)
years of elementary education and six (6) years of secondary education. The first batch of Grade 12
graduates will be in 2018 for those who started with the first Grade 7 in 2013 but the real Grade 12
graduates who went through the entire K to 12 curriculum from Grades 1 to 12 will be the graduates in
2023.

Following the standards and principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum,
the Act clarified, to wit:

The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already know proceeding from
the known to the unknown. Instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum
shall be available.

In support of MTB-MLE in 2013, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 28, s. 2013
– Additional Guidelines to DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2012. This policy aims to develop the pupil's thinking
and interactive skills as well as a positive attitude towards their own language and cultural heritage. This
order requires the first language of the learners to be used as the medium of instruction in all subject areas
from pre-kindergarten through grade three with Filipino and English being taught as separate subjects.
In addition to the twelve (12) languages of instruction enumerated in DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2012,
the following languages were used as the languages of instruction for Grade 1 until Grade 3 who speaks
the same languages in the specified regions and divisions starting school year 2013-2014.

1. Ybanag 5. Kinaray-a
2. Ivatan 6. Yakan
3. Sambal 7. Surigaonon
4. Akianon

On July 16, 2013, Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2013 also known as
"Clarification on the Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Language Learning Areas and Their
Time Allotment in Grades 1 and 2 of the K to 12 Basic Education Program". This DepEd order is concerned
with the policy guidelines in regards to the implementation of the K to 12 Basic Education Program as
stated in the Enclosure Nos. 1 and 2 of DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012.

Enclosure No. 1.A – Design of the Curriculum

The overall design of Grades 1 to 10 curriculum follows the spiral approach across subjects
by building on the same concepts developed in increasing complexity and sophistication starting
from grade school.

Enclosure No. 1.B – Desired Outcomes of Grades 1 to 10 Program

In general terms, students are expected at the end of Grade 10 to demonstrate
communicative competence; think intelligently, critically and creatively in life situations; make
informed and values-based decisions; perform their civic duties; use resources sustainably; and
participate actively in artistic and cultural activities and in the promotion of wellness and lifelong
fitness.

Enclosure No. 1.C – Nomenclature/Learning Area

There are eight learning areas comprising the core curriculum such as Integrated Language
Arts (Mother Tongue, Filipino, English), Science, Mathematics, Araling Panlipunan, Edukasyong
Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP)/Technology and Livelihood Education), MAPEH (Music,
Arts, Physical Education, Health) and Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao. Mother Tongue is taught as a
separate Learning Area in Grades 1 and 2; while Filipino, as a Learning Area, is first introduced
in Grade 1 during the second quarter or grading period; English, as a Learning Area, is first
introduced in Grade 1 during the third quarter or grading period.
Enclosure No. 1.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. Both languages are taught from Grade
1 to 10. The matrix below shows the specific medium of instruction per learning area and per grade
level.

Enclosure No. 1.D – Time Allotment

The time allotment for each subject is the minimum period for class interaction. The
learning time can be extended to include off-school learning experiences at home or in the
community for transfer of learning to real-life situations as provided for in the curriculum. The
outputs of such off-school learning experiences are usually in the form of products and
performances which shall be monitored and credited accordingly.

Enclosure No. 1.E – Class Programming

For the information and guidance of the field, all elementary and secondary schools are
requested to submit Class Program/Teacher’s Program as per attached DepEd Order No. 31, s.
2012 dated April 17, 2012, “Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to
12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC).
Below is a model of classroom programs showing the learning areas in Grade One and
suggested-time allotments. The school is empowered to design their own but should consider the
time allotment per learning area.
 Enclosure No. 2 – Sample Report Card

Role of Teachers in MTB-MLE Implementation

The success of mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB MLE) programs—indeed, of all
education—depends in large part on the teachers in the classroom. In order for teachers in MTB MLE
classrooms to help their students achieve a successful education, the teachers must understand and follow
two specific pedagogical approaches.
First, they must begin with what the students already know their own language and the
knowledge and skills they have acquired through living in their own community and use that as the
foundation for teaching new content and concepts. Second, teachers must help their students to develop
oral, written and higher-level thinking skills in the language they know best and, at the same time,
support the students as they gradually learn the official school language.
 What happens in classrooms where the children do not understand the school language and the teacher
cannot speak the language the children understand?

If the teachers cannot speak the students’ language or feel it is not permissible to use it, the results
are predictable. A natural and important question at this point is, “What should be included in teacher
training programs to equip teachers to be effective in MTB MLE classrooms?”
To help overcome the serious shortage of teachers for MTB MLE, the following are the suggestions
to include in the teacher training programs. The first three programs are meant to prepare certified
teachers for MTB MLE classrooms while the fourth focuses on non-certified teachers who speak a local
language.

1. MTB MLE incorporated into regular 2-, 3-, or 4- year teacher certification programs. In this
program, pre4service teacher trainees would have the option of focusing on MTB MLE.
Individuals who are bilingual in one of the local languages and the official school language
learn how to read and write the local language fluently and how to teach their students to do
the same. On completion of the program these pre4service teachers will have achieved the
same educational qualifications as mainstream teachers with the additional qualification for
teaching in MTB MLE classrooms.

2. “Fast track” programs for graduates with non-teaching baccalaureate degrees. This one-year
certification program would provide trainees with the pedagogical knowledge and skills
required for regular teacher certification as well as the theories, principles and practical skills
(as in #1, above) that they will need in MTB MLE classrooms.

3. MTB MLE intensive workshops for experienced certified teachers. These 2 - 4 week
workshops would enable certified teachers with experience in mainstream schools to gain the
additional theoretical and practical knowledge and skills needed to be effective in MTB MLE
classrooms. Non-certification training programs for paraprofessional teachers or teaching
assistants. These intensive training workshops would be for individuals from local language
communities who are bilingual in their home language and the school language and but lack
the necessary educational background to qualify for regular teacher certification programs.
Pre4service and regular in4service training workshops would build their capacity to work
with certified classroom teachers who are fluent in the official language but do not speak the
children’s L1.

To discuss teacher’s competencies required in the successful implementation of the Mother

Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) please refer to the following videos below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdkbDR8SXPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqLEkuDhMU

ASSESSMENT TASK
Activity 1: Read each statement and answer in a one whole yellow pad.
1. With a timeline graphic organizer, trace the national and educational history of the
language of instruction in the Philippines. Be guided with the following rubric.
Activity 2: With the use of editorial cartooning, draw a picture of an MTB-MLE teacher. Make sure to
indicate the role and the necessary competencies of the teacher in the successful implementation of MTB-
MLE. Please refer to the rubric below for scoring.

REFERENCES

Alcudia, F., et al., (2016). Mother Tongue: for Teaching and Learning. Quezon City, Metro Manila. Lorimar
Publishing, Inc.
Giron, P., et al., (2016). Teaching and Learning Languages and Multiliteracies: Responding to the MTB-
MLE Challenge. Quezon City, Metro Manila. Lorimar Publishing, Inc.
Lim, JM., et al., (2020). A Course Module for Content and Pedagogy for the Mother Tongue. Quezon City,
Metro Manila. Rex Printing Company, Inc.
Young, C., et al., (2016). Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education: Guide for Teacher Educators and
Students. Quezon City, Metro Manila. Lorimar Publishing, Inc.
https://www.sil.org/sites/default/files/files/institutionalizing_teacher_training_for_mtb_mle_12-
2011.pdf
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/