OVERVIEW OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PRACTICE IN

EDUCATION AROUND THE WORLD

Introduction
• In this chapter, the phrase language policy will mean the
legislation on and practices pertaining to the use of languages
in a society-often a nation, whereas the phrase language-in-
education policy will be used to describe the legislation on and
practices pertaining to languages or media of instruction and
languages of literacy used in basic education. As we consider
language policy, it’s helpful to review the role of language in
society. Language has many forms – for example, there is a
written form, a spoken form, a formal variety and informal
varieties.
Language also has many functions – it is as medium of
communication in different places and as language for specific
purposes. Language and languages are also given different value by
different people. Some languages are considered prestigious while
other languages are considered to have less value. This may be
related to the material qualities of the language – the presence of a
writing system or the production of reading materials in the
language.

Edwards(2009) emphasizes the fact that, in most parts of the

world, multilingualism is a reality, linked with goegraphical and
environmental factors as well as economic interests fueling
migration.
 The intention of this chapter, is to view both multilingualism
and multiculturalism from as enabling perspective, countering a
deficit perspective on multilingualism, and to acknowledge and
affirm the languages of ethnolinguistic communities as a dynamic
aspect of their identity.

1. Language Policy and Planning

National Government and Regional Agencies such as
ASEAN or the European Union, determine language policies,
determine which language will be used for what purpose, including
deciding on the language-in-education policy. Indeed, Toleffson
and Tsui (2004:2) note that it is common for the educational
argument for a specific language-in-education policy to be
subservient to the sociopolitical or economic agenda of the nation,
 And that responses to multilingualism within the nation can result
in a variety responses from a policy makers.

Ruiz (1984:17) identifies three perspectives on language

planning in multilingual situation. Language can be seen as a
problem where multiple language make mass education difficult and
thus, one language and one cultured are preferred and supported,
whereas other are less valued. Alternatively, it is possible to view
language as a right and determined that speaker of non-dominant
language have the right to maintain their ethnolinguistic identity
and use their languages in education.
 In the following section, examples from different regions of
the world illustrate the challenge of determining language policy.

1.1 Africa
In the 1960 a group of linguists from nations in post-colonial
Africa and academics from around the world met to discuss the
impact of the social change and national integration on language use
and language development. Ferguson(2006:2)acknowledge the work
of Fishman (1968:7) who described the challenges of the language
policy issue in these state as tension between nationalism – the
cultivation of national identity – and – nationalism – the development
of “operational efficiency in administration and economic
management for the maintenance of political stability”.
1.2 Asia
India
The Ethnologue list more than 400 individual languages in
India. How does this vast country with a population of over a
billion respond to the challenges of linguistic diversity,
particularly in the provision of the education? In India, Hindi,
written Devanagri script, and English operate as official language
for central government, but the individual state are given the
opportunity to decide what language they will used for local
administration and education.
1.3 Europe
The Industrial Revolution, with the increased mechanization
of productions systems and the move from agriculturally-based
economic system, was a major turning point I social political
history. Until the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the early part
of the nineteenth century, communities tended to be
geographically isolated and the I pact of the national culture on
local communities was limited ( Cartwright 2006:196). This can be
seen in the Celtic-speaking people of Britain, the Basques in Spain
and the Frisians of the Netherlands.
Wales
Industrialization and the resultant internal economic
migration from more rural countries to South Wale is identified as
a key factor in the decline of the Welsh Language in the early 20th
century (Ferguson 2006:89). This was coupled with migration with
England and Ireland into South Wales for employment, adding to
the Anglicization of the region. This increase in language contact
meant that Welsh increasingly become a language that had limited
function in the community where English was use in multiple
domains. English speakers remained monolingual and Welsh
speakers were required to become bilingual, a unidirectional
bilingualism.
Luxembourg
• Language policy in Europe continues to be strongly influenced
by social and economic concerns. This is by illustrated by the
changes in the language policy in Luxembourg, a small nation-
state in Wester Europe where many of the population are
already bilingual or multilingual, particularlyin either French
or German. The government gave status to Letzebergesch by
establishing it as the national language in order to forge
national and cultural cohesion and to mitigate against the
linguistic influences from neighboring countries.
2. Language Policy in the Philippines
A scene-setting Filipino perspective on the challenges of language
and education is offered by Bautista (1999:113) who notes that;

“The language problem of the Philippines, according to most

filipino sociolinguists, is the problem of reconciling the competing
demands of ethnicity (Embodied in an individual’s mother tongue
or vernacular), nationalism (manifested in having and propagating
a national language) and modernization (seen to be synonymous
with using an international language).”
 Toleffson (1991: 142) and Rappa & Wee (2006:72) discuss the
complementary roles of Filipino and English. English is seen as a
instrumental language of modernity, supporting economic progress.
Filipino is viewed as a means of reinforcing the ideological status of the
Philippines as an independent nation-state, facilitating enter group
communication within the country while preserving aspect of national
identity.

Thus, the design of appropriate approaches to language

education for the learners in the Philippines is a complex issue given the
diversity of language, culture and pre-school experiences brought to
school by children in nation of 7,000 islands in which more than 180
language are spoken (lewis et. Al.2015)
 The language policy of the Department of the
Education(1974,1987)required the use of the two languages of
instruction: Filipino and English. Other language only as “auxiliary”
language in the classroom, not in textbooks or written form. The intent
was to bring the country together under two languages and promotes
fluency in English and Filipino.

However, this marginalized 70% of learners by conducting

learning in the languages that only communicate to around 30% of the
population. On the basis of the recommendations of the Soriano
Committee, the National Board on Education issued Resolution No. 73-
2, s. 1973 an don June 19th 1974, (Sibayan 1973:308)
 The official policy on bilingual Education on the Philippines was
instituted by Department od Education and culture and sports (DECS) Order
No. 25 titled “Implementing Guidelines for the policy on Bilingual Education”
(Sibayan 1978: 302; Espiritu 2002: Internet article; Gonzales 2007:368

The teaching methodology described in the 1974 language policy

prescribes that the teacher use either Pilipino or English, depending on
the subject. Subject are divided into the English domain and the Filipino
domain (Gonzales & Sibayan 1988:1). English was define as the
language of instruction for the delivery of English Communication Arts,
Mathematics and Science. Filipino was to be the medium of instruction
for all other subjects in the curriculum .
 Essentially, this is the policy that has continued in the Philippines
schools into the twenty first century (Gonzalez 1996: 210; 2007:368, Young
2011). Vizconde (2006:267) describes the 1974 policy as beginning a
significant improvement in language teaching. Teachers no longer were so
resilient on structured drills and memorization that were features of the
English-only policy, but where increasingly aware of methodologies that
were consistent with second language acquisition approaches. The Bilingual
Education Policy was subsequently revised in 1978 by (DECS) order No.
25s (DECS 1987a; DECS 1987b). In the revised policy, the regional
languages were elevated to the role of “auxiliary language”.
2.1 The role of English in the Philippines
The use of English, a result, primarily, of the American colonial
legacy, has had a considerable impact, particularly in the education
system, with some (Tui 2005:8) believing that it has damaged the self-
esteem of ethnolinguistic communities and the internal unity of those
communities.

“American colonial education has tranquilised our mind. Until

now, it has continued to divide our communities , our intellectual and
academic disdaining to talk on their own languages ----- in language of
their peasant and workers. When are we going to return to our own
people and restore the oneness of our communities”
 In the rural communities, people may not have much exposure to
either Filipino or English and children may begin formal schooling at sex
years old with little knowledge of either Filipino or English, the major
language of education.
There strong support for the use of English in education and in the
society for instrumental purposes. House Bill 4701 on “Strengthening
and Enhancing the use of English as the Medium of Instruction in the
Philippines School” was passed in the House of Representatives in 2006
(Licuanan 200c). President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo certified the
House Bill as urgent and it received strong support from the business
community, which saw the use of English in the School as a component
towards increasing the global economic competitiveness of the
Philippines. However, Acuna & Miranda ( 1994:7) state that there is
“hardly any clamour” for English to be the national language
 The most powerful lobby for continued impasses on English comes
from the private business sector, the media, political circles and some
educators ( Licuanan 2007: Internet article). This lobby argues that the
use of English is related to the Philippines global competitiveness in the
country’s comparative advantages in each large English speaking work
force particularly the potential of the Philippines retaining its large
OFW workers. Both Fililpino Educators and the Filipino Public realise
that English is now a major world language and competence in English
gives access to the global opportunities. Sibayan (1999g:205). Notes,
 “The lesson for the Philippines is clear: it is not necessary or all
Filipino’s to learn English, especially intellectualized English, provided we
can develop Filipino so that most of the worlds knowledge can be made
available and accessible and that language and Filipino’s may be educated
in Filipino from kindergarten to graduates school”
2.2 Towards Multilingual Education Policy
There is comparatively little written about the contribution of the
many vernacular languages of the Philippines to education and the
development. These may itself be indicated of the value assigned to the
languages of the provinces and the minority ethnolinguistic
communities by language policy developers.
The First Iloilo experiment was undertaken from 1948-1954 by
Jose D. Aguilar (Sibayan, 1999c, 1999e, Nolasco 2008:7) who pioneered
in used of Hilligaynon as medium of instruction in grade’s one and two.
The test with the showed Hiligaynon-taught children out performing
English-taught children in reading, math and social studies.
 The study not only showed L1 student’s being able to transfer
the knowledge learned in their L1 to English. It also found the L1
student’s catching up with the L2 student’s in their knowledge in
English within six months after being exposed to English as medium of
instruction (Young 2011).
Other related programs that can be mentioned are (Nolasco 2008:7) the
second Iloilo Language Experiment (1961-1964), the Rizal experiment
(1960-1966) and the six –year First Language Component – Bringing
program (FLCBP) on “transitional” education in Ifugao province; and
the Lubuagan First Language Component (Walter and Dekker (2008),
However, despite these innovations, the Bilingual Education policies
primarily acknowledged the use of vernacular languages of the
Philippines as auxiliary languages to be used orally.
 However, towads the end of Arroyo administration , it became
clear that a response was required to the low educational achievement
of Filipino students as revealed on international tests, which led to the
institutionalization of mother tongue-base multilingual education
initially through Department of Education Order No.74 s. 2009
(Department of Education 2009) which was a significant milestone in
the journey to establish equitable system for learners from all
ethnolinguistic communities of the Philippines (Young 2011).
On 14 September 2010, the government-initiated Alternative
Learning System (ALS) Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples (IPs)
Education was institutionalized through DepEd Order No.101. This
also moved multilingual policies and awareness of the importance of
language –in-education from only the formal sector to the non- formal
sector.
2.3 Institutionalization of MTB-MLE
Finally, in 2013, the Philippines education system, through
Republic Acts, 10533 and the associated implementing rules and
regulations, in mandating a 13 year, K-12 education system, specified (
Section 10.2.f) that the curriculum for basic education in the
Philippines

• “…. 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;