User:Rubindamay/sandbox

Overview
There are 187 languages in the Philippines. From 1521 to 1946, the Philippines was under colonial rule. First by the Spanish. Second by America. Spanish colonial rule set up some of the earliest foundations of education systems in Asia. Implementation of Spanish as the language of instruction was reserved for members of the higher sections of society, creating a hierarchy of language. American colonialism reinforced this language hierarchy through forcing vernacular languages to the outer sections of society. English was implemented into schools as the language of instruction from the beginning of American colonial rule. By the end of American colonial rule, English dominated, with native languages on the periphery. Language politics in the Philippines became complicated after independence with the educational system reflecting the tensions between English as the language of instruction and the use of native languages by students reserved to the home and the community and the hierarchy of language. Nationalists began to push back against the domination of English in support for the use of vernacular languages to be used in education. Policies in the 1950s implemented the use of vernacular languages in early school years. A turn to Bilingual Education Policies (BEP) was introduced in 1970s and reaffirmed through making Filipino the national language in 1987. Arguments in favour of mother-tongue teaching and suggestions of BEP's role in continually reinforcing the hierarchy of language were present at the turn of the century. This led to the implementation of ‘Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education’ (MTB-MLE), through the Republic Act 10533, in 2012. MTB-MLE in the Philippines is only present in the first three grades to bridge the gap between students' home language and language of instruction. The transfer of the initial language skills developed in the first three years, taught in mother-tongue, would transfer to the learning of English and Filipino in later grades. Debates around the effectiveness of this policy exist. Tensions remains between the use of English verses local languages. The push for MTB-MLE is up against the continued dominance and hegemonic presence of the English language and sustained inequalities of multilingualism.

Role of Spanish Colonialism on Philippine Language Policy in Education
Language policy for education in the Philippines has been influenced by Spanish colonial legacy (1521-1898). Early Spanish colonial influence was implemented and embedded into the curriculum and education policies through the spread of the Christian faith. The establishment of schools came soon after the beginning of Spanish colonial rule. Most Christian villages hosted a school for the locals to attend. King Philip II's aim was for missionaries to spread ‘religious wisdom’ through the teaching of Spanish reading and writing. This aim to ‘enlighten’ and educate the Philippine natives through teaching Spanish proved difficult. The lack of missionaries to teach Spanish, the tribal and linguistic diversity of the Philippines and the difficult geography of the Philippines created these challenges for the Spanish missionaries. In the hope of catalysing religious conversion, the Spanish friars turned to the use of native languages to teach the Filipino people. Forms of Spanish education were available to the higher classes of Filipino people. This created a hierarchy of language in the Philippines. Spanish was used as the medium of instruction, as opposed to local languages, which were considered inferior. In setting up some of the earliest foundations of education systems in Asia it can be said to be effective. Filipinos were among the most educated peoples in all of Asia at that time. There were systems of free and compulsory education present by the mid 1800s. However, towards the end of the Spanish colonial rule, only 2.46 per cent of the adult population could speak Spanish. This undermined the influence the Spanish had in the formation of an effective education system. Spanish colonisation had not succeeded in providing a good measure of public primary education.

Role of American Colonialism on Philippine Language Policy in Education
American colonialism was established soon after Spanish colonial rule. An American win in the Philippine-American war (1899-1902) led to the occupation by the United States from 1902-1946. Quickly established was the use of English as the medium of instruction. It became “the de facto medium of instruction in the public schooling system”. The provision of education was at top priority for the Americans. Although the apparent failures of the Spanish in creating a national public system of education, it enabled the US to set up theirs, with schools from the Spanish era being recycled. Similarly to the Spanish colonial rule, the use of education was a tool to “destroy superstition and ignorance”. An American magazine in 1899 depicted a "childlike" Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the Philippine Republic (1899-1901), being chased by a “troop of school houses”. This was symbolic of how Americans saw the process of education and the use of the English language as the key to turning the Filipino nationalists away from their ignorance to enlightenment and modernity. More than one thousand teachers were authorised to come to the Philippines from the US to teach by the The Philippine Commission. These were known as the Thomasites and they were integral to the beginning of English teaching in the Philippines. The Service Manual of the Bureau of Education (1927) stated that: "In pushing for the official English language, it must be borne in mind that the government has no intention or desire to supplant the various native dialects. These will probably be used in the home and for many local purposes". A new hierarchy of language was being created through American colonial educational policy. By the time independence came, native languages were on the periphery, with the language of instruction being English. This language policy was embedded in the new school curricula that institutionalised Western ideologies as pedagogical practices. The national curriculum served as a tool to form a single national identity across the diverse ethnolinguistic groups of the archipelago.

Failures in the Colonial Education Systems
In the postcolonial era, the ‘American legacy’ of English shaped debates around how national language and bilingual education policies were to be carried out. The politics of language in the Philippine's education featured tensions between English as the language of instruction and the use of native languages by students at home and outside of educational contexts. In 1925, a ‘board of Education Survey’, headed by Paul Monroe, was set up to look into the educational status of the Philippines. The results of this survey were further supported by a UNESCO survey in 1949. Both surveys concluded that there were issues regarding language in education and teacher training. Separately, the Monroe report highlighted the lack of relationship between Philippine schooling and Philippine life. These three issues highlighted by these surveys show where colonial (both Spanish and American) policies failed to establish an effective education system. Implementing language policies in education that dominated over and ignored the linguistic diversity of the Archipelago create these “language issues” that were highlighted in the surveys. Language obstacles presented in the UNESCO report explain how first grade students “come to school with a local dialect, receives instruction in English and must learn the National Language”. English domination in Philippine education and curricula hindered the relevance of Philippine education to the students’ life. This was stated in the Monroe report. The colonial hierarchy of language silenced the native languages of the Philippines "rather than propelling the unique culture of the Philippines". The hierarchies of language that were being produced and maintained through the use of colonial language were contested by Philippine nationals. The use of English had a role in the production and rise in Philippine nationalism.

Policies and Developments Towards Mother-tongue teaching
Post-independence Filipino educational language policies (1946 onwards) saw developments of language instruction move towards the use of local dialects. Arguments for the greater role of local dialects arose in opposition to colonial language policy. Tensions between vernacular languages on one hand and English on the other were common in Philippine language politics. Students were caught in the middle. Postcolonial Filipino students could not “master the master’s speech” due to its references and sounds consisting outside of any sort of relatability. Filipino students had also, through being forced to learn English, “lost their ability to speak their mother-tongue”. A UNESCO conference in 1953 concluded that the use of vernacular languages as the language of instruction in education: “reduces the gulf between home and school”, “enhances the importance of local languages and identity” and facilitates “linguistic and cognitive development”. Evidence expressed during this UNESCO conference summarises the arguments which were emerging against colonial language in education. Increasing support for language instruction to have greater local significance came with the aim to “denounce the hegemony of English”. Movement towards mother tongue teaching occurred following the independence of the Philippines. From 1957 onwards, the use of vernacular languages was implemented for classroom instruction alongside the national language and English. These local vernacular languages were only present in the first years of teaching. Tagalog (which later became Pilipino)  and English became the primary mediums of instruction “after the initial phase using the local vernaculars”. The curriculum stated that English and Tagalog were to be studied as subjects and to progress in importance as students moved up the “educational ladder”. 1974 was the height of the anti-colonial colonial agenda. It saw bilingual education was institutionalised with Pilipino and English as the languages of instruction. The institutionalisation of Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) in 1974 created the framework for the education system throughout the rest of the 20th century. In 1987, there was a “reaffirmation of bilingual education through the institutionalisation of Filipino as the national language”. The Filipino nationalist agenda was increasing in consciousness amongst the population causing a challenge to bilingual education at the turn of the century. Arguments suggested that BEPs "serve those in power and reinforce social inequalities” . Achievement test by national and international bodies found that education achievement of students in the Philippines were low . Greater institutional reforms towards multilingual education were proposed in the early 2000s . In 2009, these were institutionalised . In 2012, they were formally introduced.

The introduction of mother-tongue teaching through the 2013 ‘Education Act’
In 2012, the Philippines implemented the ‘K-12’ curriculum, through the Republic Act 10533. This policy was introduced in all public elementary schools. The policy initiative added two years of Senior High School and aimed to make education “learner-oriented and responsive to the needs.. and circumstances of learners”. One key element of this educational reform, to establish “appropriate mediums of teaching and learning”, was the implementation of ‘Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education’ (MTB-MLE). This act required the use of "mother tongue or the language predominantly spoken in the local community" as the medium of instruction "for all subject areas from kindergarten to grade 3” . MTB-MLE promotes language instruction that places value in the cultural identities of the learners” . The K-12 policy states that there are 19 languages used in the MTB-MLE curriculum . Using "the home language and culture" makes the curriculum familiar and applies students' knowledge into the system . Schools with their mother-tongue not included in the department chosen languages are recommended to use the “lingua franca” most similar to any of the 19 languages that are chosen . Filipino is used as many Filipinos “inter-ethnic lingua franca” . The MTB-MLE curriculum framework combines cultural and pedagogical factors . Making the official language of instruction the local language impacts on the learners’ understanding of their identity and community. “Language imposes itself on all subjects” and “communication permeates all the learning domains of the curriculum”. The introduction of MTB-MLE changes the pedagogy and curriculum through the power of language. It has been argued that “language is the main tool in the learning process”. The K-12 curriculum enables a sense of cultural pride, understanding and identity for the students in addition to reading and writing skills. English and Filipino are used alongside mother-tongue teaching. They are not used as the language of instruction in the first three years of Philippine education. In grade 1, Filipino is introduced in the second quarter. English is not introduced until the beginning of the third quarter. From the beginning of grades 2 and 3, “English and Filipino are taught as separate subjects”. This is an additive bilingual approach "wherein the native language is maintained as the literacy and proficiency in other languages are developed” . In grade 4, Filipino and English become the languages of instruction . Slow integration of other languages aims to “develop a strong foundation in mother language before adding additional languages” . Strong foundations in students' mother-tongue can be transferred to other languages learnt in later years of schooling . The MTB-MLE policy is used as a foundation that allows for multilingualism. It has been a “critical shift in the politics of language in the Philippines” and enabled the hopes of an “effective, inclusive and just” educational system.

The impact of the K-12 Policy
Initially, there was backlash to the introduction of the K-12 curriculum. Many teachers and students continued to devalue their own languages by expressing preference for learning English (and Filipino). The colonial hierarchy of language that remained in the Philippines meant that "many Filipinos cling tenaciously to false notions of the inadequacy of their mother tongues or Philippine languages for academic learning” . Resistance against MTB-MLE stemmed from the perceived economic benefits the students would gain, if they possessed and learned 'desirable' English language skills . The assumption made by teachers was that learning English would “guarantee better and financially more lucrative job opportunities” . There did begin to be delayed acceptance and support of the policy by teachers. MTB-MLE's practicalities showed in time. "The teachers found the use of the mother tongue in teaching content lessons practical and pedagogically effective”. Support for the new curriculum stated how MTB-MLE allows for the creation of “truly equitable society where all languages and cultures are equally valued and respected as one of multiple identity markers" . Literature on the successes of the 'K to 12 curriculum' have highlighted some weaknesses in the implementation. It has been argued that there has not been proper allocation of resources. In 2015, estimations shoed that the Philippine government still needed to hire "43,000 teachers and build 30,000 classrooms" in order to implement the change to MTB-MLE. Strong population growth also continued to put pressures on the education system . The curriculum reform has led to a decrease in higher education enrolment due to the two additional school years pushing back enrolment. . Internationally, there remains to be pressures from capitalism, neocolonialism, globalisation and cultural imperialism that also impact the effectiveness of this policy. "To gain essential social and economic capital", the Philippines is reliant on English proficiency, typically opting to pursue it. During the past 15 years, the number of Filipino students enrolling in degree programs abroad rose from from 5,087 students in 1999 to 14,696 students in 2016. This highlights the remained importance for the ability to speak English. Inequalities in multilingualism are sustained, despite the Philippines' efforts. Success of the K to 12 curriculum lies within its ability to enhance students initial learning developments. Mother tongue teaching is used as a tool to teach through . It allows students' progression on to other languages as they move on to higher education. The use of local languages in the Philippine education system "is a good social policy and an ideal form of education". However, "MTB-MLE is set against overwhelming ideological and structural odds" which threaten its "efficacy and relevance".