[lg policy] Philippines: Languages and inclusive education

[Harold Schiffman]

Languages and inclusive education

By: Magtanggol T. Gunigundo I
Philippine Daily Inquirer

I was one of two plenary speakers at the 2nd Philippine Conference
Workshop on Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) in
Iloilo City which started last Feb. 16 and ends today. The other
speaker was the esteemed Dr. Kimmo Kosonen of Payap University, whose
incisive thoughts on education I will comment on later.
Before that gathering, I presented my critique of the K+12 program
that the government is implementing in June 2012. While I do recognize
that our 10-year education cycle is one of the shortest in the world,
I question the rationale that our education authorities have been
feeding the public for extending the education cycle by two years.
Decongesting the curriculum and altering its content to suit the needs
of business will not be enough to sway public opinion to support such
an extension. The shift in the medium of instruction and philosophy of
the first language (L1) of the learners provides a more compelling
driver to make K+12 worthwhile.
Based on the change in the philosophy of learning, I called for the
complete overhaul of the reading-based second language bias of the
current curriculum by moving away from judging children’s achievement
on the basis of acquisition of English and Filipino, and underscoring
the goal of basic education as learning to read, speak, write and
think on academic topics in the L1. This also means purging the
curriculum of foreign stereotypes and examples (e.g., zebra, little
red riding hood) and replacing them with the indigenous and culturally
appropriate knowledge of our language communities.

Of course, there is a need to learn a language of wider communication
like English, in addition to the home language, but never at its
expense.
The likelihood of dropping out of school increases when children are
forced to learn in the language they cannot understand. Full literacy
does not accrue to children if they do not know the language of
literacy well. A clear picture of what they have learned cannot be
gained if school assessments are conducted in a language they are not
familiar with.
While research continues to pile up in favor of mother tongue-based
instruction, the number of primary aged children who have minimal or
no access to L1 education continues to grow. Today, the estimates
stand at 2.4 billion, or roughly 40 percent of the world’s population.
On the other hand, Kosonen’s revelation that although language myths
(e.g., “the more dominant language, the better,” “the earlier, the
better”) continue to abound, the policy climate in Southeast Asia
regarding non-dominant languages (NDL) is improving.
Kosonen classified the NDL policy in these countries into: (a) no
explicit policy or practice (Brunei, Laos, Burma [Myanmar] and
Singapore); (b) enabling policy, little implementation (Indonesia,
Malaysia, Timor Leste and Vietnam); (c) some policy support and some
action (Cambodia and Thailand); and (d) strong policy support and some
action (the Philippines).
His description of the Philippine situation may have been brought
about by the fact that in 2009, our country institutionalized L1 use
in formal and non-formal education, even if this is up to Grade 3
only. This is what is called a short-exit program in contrast to the
long-exit program I am proposing.
Kosonen likewise made the following observations: (a) “Education for
All” goals in Asian countries will not be met without massive
expansion of quality MLE; (b) The biggest challenge is a
misunderstanding of L1 learning and the lack of political will for
strong L1-based education; and (c) there is an ideal approach to
L1-based MLE which consists of progression and bridging between
languages in the long term, and the lifelong learning of the L1.
Throughout the conference, I could sense a profound change in the
attitudes of educators toward L1 use in education. It appears to me
that the issue to them is increasingly becoming a question of “how” to
implement MLE, compared to the “why” of three years ago.
One truly memorable moment in the conference is the pasidungog given
by West Visayas State University to Dr. Jose V. Aguilar, who is
considered the father of vernacular education in the Philippines. In
1948, Aguilar carried out the experimental use of Hiligaynon as medium
of instruction in Sta. Barbara schools and proved the superiority of
the L1 in teaching children. As she received the posthumous award,
Aguilar’s daughter Mila said:
“The best way to honor Jose V. Aguilar would be to increase once again
the number of hours for teaching in our elementary and high schools,
with the commensurate number of subjects to ensure the best learning
for our intelligent race, because as all theories of education will
tell you, learning takes time and is cumulative. A very good way of
honoring Jose V. Aguilar would be to do as you are doing now,
re-institutionalizing MTBMLE. The best way to honor Jose V. Aguilar
would be to honor education.”

http://opinion.inquirer.net/23261/languages-and-inclusive-education
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list