1.

Discuss the implementation of the PBEP-gaps, issues, challenges, and

development.

Gaps

Awareness

The study was conducted over teachers and parents from Kaibigan School District
located im Bikol which possessed limited awareness over MTB-MLE.
Teachers had an idea on the meaning of MTB-MLE with 95% of percentage rate which
had a 45% percentage gap from parents. But when it comes to the awareness on the
language of instruction, teachers and parents acquired a 10%-gap—teachers, 90%;
parents, 80%.

Teachers and parents also possess uncertainty about the purpose of the policy, hence,
leaving it as a result of research.

Implementation of the policy in the national and local level

On the research conducted in Kaibigan School District, teachers became more focused
on its logistics—how are they going to implement the policy in their school. On the side
of the parents, they merely emphasized that the policy was not discussed to them by the
teachers and was just old that it is being done. Parents and teachers based their ideas
about MTB-MLE over speculations over certainty which created a gap between the
national and local levels.

Interchanging ideas with other policy, such as kto12

MTB-MLE is embedded in the Kto12 program that to the perception that the two policies
can be talked about interchangeably. Although, MTB-MLE and K to 12 are two separate
policies, teachers and parents would term MTB-MLE as K to 12. They perceived that
MTB-MLE is used in the kto12 system all over the world.

Issues

 Anti-colonial discourse
it also drew on the more anti-colonial discourse of the 1960s and 1970s (Tupas 2007)
during which anti-American sentiments took on more overt forms in street
demonstrations and underground movements because of widespread beliefs that
despite gaining political independence from the United States in 1946, the structures and
ideologies of American neocolonialism continued to control much of Philippine life
(Schirmer and Shalom 1987). It was during this time – “when nationalism and the search
for roots became fashionable” (Mulder 1990, p. 86) – that the notion of the
“miseducation” of the Filipino people (Constantino 1982) gained much political traction
and undergirded the anti-English discourse of bilingual education: “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” (p. 6). (file:///C:/Users/VPSSWS14/Documents/Erika%20Joy
%20Zoleta/Language%20Programs%20and%20Policies%20in%20Multilingual
%20Societies/Tupas_MartinEncyclopedia5Sept2016.pdf)
 Internal and external issues
The Human Development Network (HDN), in a 2010 paper written by a group of
academics led by Prof. Cynthia Rose Bautista, noted that while the Philippine
government has undertaken a series of initiatives in reforming the basic education
sector, some things, if not a lot of things, remain the same. Among the major reasons
 that hinder reform in basic education, in the DepEd itself, is the failed language-in-
education policy (Bautista 2010). The paper is categorical in saying the language-in-
education policy is out of sync with research evidence. A closer examination of previous
policies and by looking at researches on responsive language-in-education policy, the
Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) that was in place before MTBMLE, was a dismal failure
as evidenced by its products, many of them teachers who are still teaching who,
according to Bautista, “have been reported as greatly deficient in their English language
skills (emphasis mine).” The deficiency in the second language (L2) is a default in the
BEP because there was no emphasis in the mastery of the first language (L1) of the
learners as a condition to acquiring with proficiency a second or third language later on.
We have to reiterate the point that using the learner’s mother tongue facilitates literacy,
learning of academic content, the acquisition of a second language enabling learners to
be bilingual, and overall academic achievement. In sum, Bautista identified four major
points that hinder reform in language-in-education policy. First, the DepEd formulated a
weak policy on bilingual education that does not stand on strong theoretical grounds;
second, the DepEd surrendered the power to decide on the language of schools rather
than advocate research-based policy; third, exacerbating the loss of efficacy in
determining the language policy is a seeming lack of serious effort on the part of the
DepEd to explain the crucial role of language to policy makers; and finally, the DepEd
has yet to negotiate a shift from structural learning paradigms to more socio-
constructivist methods of teaching and assessing language and literacy learning.
(https://tonyigcalinos.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/language-in-education-policy-gaps-
and-challenges-in-the-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mtbmle-
implementation-in-philippines-basic-education/)

Challenges

 Language of instruction problems

At present, in elementary education, the three subjects of mathematics, natural science,
and English are taught in English, while the five subject of ethics, civics, MSEP, life
science, and Filipino are taught in Filipino. Problems with the language of instruction
become more serious in farming villages and other rural areas. The situation is not that
serious where the native language of the pupol is a relatively frequently spoken
language like tagalog, since this only involves switching from tagalog to English.
(https://www.u-keiai.ac.jp/issn/menu/ronbun/no19/19-175_yanagi.pdf)

Development

(make this as a timeline)

 In light of the 1973 Constitution, the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) released DECS Order No. 25 s. 1974, entitled “Implementing Guidelines for the
Policy on Bilingual Education,” which served as a basis for the institutionalization of
bilingual education policy in basic education. The Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) “aims
 at the achievement of competence in both Filipino and English at the national level,
through the teaching of both languages and their use as media of instruction at all levels.

The 1987 Constitution, while additive in character as far as the provision on language-in-
education policy goes, nevertheless upheld the designation of the artificial and still Tagalog-
based Filipino as the national language. Article XIV, Section 6 provides:

“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 provisions 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.”

Like any other language, Filipino is in the process of development through loans from other
native Philippine languages and non-native varieties of the language and through use on
various social situations by speakers of different backgrounds for conversations and for
scholarly discussions.

As time goes by, development in PBEP propagates.

 Section 9 of the same Article XIV (1987 constitution) even underscores the promotion,
research, development, propagation, and preservation of Filipino and other languages.
 On August 14, 1991, President Aquino signed into law Republic Act 7104 creating the
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF), which is tasked to “undertake, coordinate and
promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and
other Philippine languages.”
 In 1994, then President Ramos signed into law Republic Act No. 7722 creating the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). In 1996, the Commission issued CHED
Memorandum Order No. 59 s. 1996, which states that “in consonance with the Bilingual
Education Policy underlined in DECS Order No. 52, Series of 1987, the following are
the guidelines vis-a-vis medium of instruction, to wit: (1) language courses, whether
Filipino or English, should be taught in that language. (2) At the discretion of the HEI,
Literature subjects may be taught in Filipino, English or any other language as long as
there are enough instructional materials for the same and both students and
instructors/professors are competent in the language. Courses in the Humanities and
Social Sciences should preferably be taught in Filipino.
 Between 1995 and 2009, there have been numerous attempts in Congress to strengthen
and make English as the medium of instruction in all levels. In the 13th Congress, for
example, the House of Representatives passed on third reading the so-called English
Only bill by Cebuano congressman Eduardo Gullas. However, the Senate failed to act
on the Bill as its members were already busy preparing for the 2007 midterm elections.
The English Only bill was intended to supersede the bilingual education policy that was
still in place since 1974. But neither of the so-called English Only bills came to fruition
and in July 14, 2009, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009
 mandating the institutionalization of the mother tongue-based multilingual education in
Philippine basic education.
 In 2010, President Benigno Aquino III undertook a major education reform by introducing
the K12 program and in 2011, he signed into law Republic Act No. 10533, which put in
place the K12 system in Philippine basic education. RA 10533 embodied the MTBMLE
provisions of DepEd Order No. 74 s. 2009 in Sections 4 and 5.
 https://tonyigcalinos.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/language-in-education-policy-gaps-and-
challenges-in-the-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education-mtbmle-implementation-
in-philippines-basic-education/

Question n0. 2. What are the Policies governing language use in the Philippines?

The Department Order No. 25, s. 1974 titled as “Implementing Guidelines for the
Policy on Bilingual Education. “Defined as the separate use of Filipino and English as
the media of instruction in specific subject areas.  Wherein, Pilipino used as medium of
instruction in social studies/social sciences, music, arts, physical education, home
economics, practical arts and character education. While on the other hand, English
used to science, mathematics and technology subjects. The policy on Bilingual
Education aims at the achievement of competence in both Filipino and English at the
national level, through the teaching of both languages and their use as media of
instruction at all levels and the propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy.  The
regional languages are used as auxiliary languages in Grades 1 and 2. The aspiration
of the Filipino nation is to have its citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to
perform their functions & duties to meet the needs of the country in the community of
nations.

The DECS Order No. 11 S. 1987 was known as “An Act Granting Priority to
Residents of the Barangay, Municipality or City where the School is Located, in the
Appointment or Assignment of Classroom Public School Teachers”. The Order provides
the guidelines to be followed in hiring teachers where it clearly stated that the first
priority shall be residents of the barangay where the public elementary school is located
allowing the use of the local language and enhancing local culture in cultural
minorities. The goal is to sustain, reinforce, and expand our native languages, as
well as to lay the groundwork for learning English and other international
languages which allows use of local language specifically where local culture should
be enhanced in cultural communities.

Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Order 81

In 1987, the DECS released the "Alphabet and a Guide for Spelling in the Filipino
Language," laying down the letters of Filipino alphabet and rules on spelling.
According to the order, the Filipino Alphabet is composed of 28 letters – the original 26
letters of the English alphabet, plus letters Ñ and Ng. The order also details how the
letters should be read.
It also discussed grammar and spelling in the Filipino language – rules regarding
diction, spelling, translation, how and when to use loanwords, syllables and syllabication
of words, and the use of dashes, commas, and accents.
The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall cooperate with the
National Language Commission which, according to the 1987 Constitution, shall
be tasked with the further development and enrichment of Filipino.
The Department of Education, Culture and Sports shall provide the means by
which the language policy can be implemented with the cooperation of
government and non-government organizations.
The Department shall program funds for implementing the Policy, in such areas
as materials production, in-service training, compensatory, and enrichment
program for non-Tagalogs, development of a suitable and standardized Filipino
For classroom use and the development of appropriate evaluative instruments.

References:

Policies on the use of the Filipino language (rappler.com)

DO 52, s. 1987 – The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education | Department of Education

(deped.gov.ph)

Question no. 3. What are the challenges in the implementation of these policies?

Of course, as there are so many opportunities, pros and advantages about these and more
policies, it also true that students, parents, teachers, principals, academies, etc. have to deal
with several challenges. We could therefore describe those challenges as the function of
responsibility that each interested party should have in order to make these policies as
beneficial as possible for as many Filipinos as possible. Because I want to be a bilingual-
education teacher, I would like to acknowledge these challenges for me to be prepared. I am
discussing these challenges according to the three policies mentioned before, which tell me that
some difficulties on their implementation could be difficulty in copping in a multilingual
environment, issues in formal translation, inadequacy of instructional materials, and lack of
support from the government in investment. The challenge of these policies is not just
bilingualism—it is the whole educational system! The deterioration of English must be
understood in the context of the general decline in Philippine education. The problem we are
facing is not simply the deterioration of English. It is also the deterioration of Math and Science,
and it is this general decline that undermines the competitiveness of the Filipino and the
Philippines. Indeed, undue emphasis on bilingualism may distract us from the bigger problem.
“Upgrading education in general should improve the quality of English as well.”
Reference: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1999/03/05/executive-order-no-81-s-1999/

Question no. 4 - C What are current issues governing the use of language in public
schools?

Answer: - In the Cordillera administrative region (CAR), there are clearly five major languages,
and these five account for less than 80% of the households. A school in this region needs
textbooks in at least five different languages. A school in this region requires teachers who can
instruct in these languages. - These languages are about to disappear. This is one reason why
teaching the mother tongue as a subject in schools is important. It is to preserve a cultural
treasure. Asking that a mother tongue be offered as a subject is asking a lot less than asking for
a mother tongue to be used as a medium of instruction. MTB-MLE, because of its cost, can only
select a fraction of the languages.

Reference: https://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2013/10/languages-in-philippines-
challenge-for.html List of issues in public schools: - Limited MTB-MLE reading materials -
Diversity of Languages - Learners are more familiar with Filipino and English due to social
media and casual conversations. Reference: https://asiapacificmle-bucket.s3.us-east-
2.amazonaws.com/image/P151A-Compressed.pdf