Language policy in the Philippines is a complex issue because of the linguistic and cultural diversity of its

inhabitants (Tonio & Ella, 2019). Taking into consideration the more or less 7000 islands and 181 distinct
languages, crafting and implementing language policies in the educational sector that could serve and
cater to the needs of the whole country becomes a challenge (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2013). As a
matter of practice, the country’s educational curriculum undergoes a couple of revisions and
modifications every ten years. As a result, language policies in the Philippines have changed dramatically
and fluctuated over the previous century, with practically every generation having a distinct policy
(Burton, 2013). In the recent years, the 1974 and 1987 Bilingual Education Policies institutionalized
English and Filipino as the official languages of instruction albeit a great majority of the population do
not use and speak both languages as their L1 (Burton, 2013).

The swift phases of changes in the Filipino society in terms of education and global demands pushed
lawmakers to update the curriculum that could serve to the ever-changing demands of the 21st century
(Valerio, 2015). With the challenges brought by the Bilingual Education Policy, the Department of
Education (DepEd) in 2009, issued an order which insttutionalized the Mother Tongue-Based
Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE).

The study found that students who learned using their L1 for six years outperformed students who only
learned in their L1 for three years in terms of overall academic achievement gains. Despite having had
fewer years with English as the LOI, the first group showed no significant difference in English
proficiency from the second group (Fafunwa, Macauley, & Sokoya, 1989 as cited in Burton, 2013 p. 28-
29).
Research Questions
The current study attempted to provide answers to the succeeding questions:

1. What is the attitude of high school teachers with regards to the implementation of MTBMLE in the
primary grades?

2. What are the problems/challenges that students and teachers are facing in the secondary level that
are one way or another linked to the MTB-MLE implementation?

What linguistic classroom environments do the teachers describe?

• How do the teachers express the status of Filipino, English and the mother tongue?

• How do the teachers express their understanding of correlations between language and identity?
Correlations between language and identity
With regard to identity, all of the teachers expressed that they consider the ability to use
different languages to be an important social marker and strongly connected to a person’s
origins. Hence, languages are considered an integral part of a collectivist society because of its
role as a social glue that strengthens connections within the local communities.

The teachers' identities in relation to the languages

Supporting the pupils' construction of identities

The teachers awareness of the pupils’ needs to express themselves in the language of the
pupil's own choice, and their openness to allowing this to happen, are a part of supporting their
pupils in their identity-building process. All the teachers stated that they encourage their pupils
to use their mother tongue orally to express his or her thoughts if unable to do so in English or
Filipino. Furthermore, two of the teachers stated that they encourage the pupils to use their
mother tongue when writing.
 CHAPTER II

Language policy is a relatively new academic field that has evolved immensely since the 1960s.
It began with a philosophy of modernization through national development and focused more
on linguistic homogeneity than language preservation. Since then, it has moved toward a
critical perspective that considers issues of equality and justice through language rights
(Ricento, 2000). The MTB-MLE policy in the Philippines is indicative of this shift in perspective at
a national level, yet the local-level perspective is notably absent from the discussion.

Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual

Language Beliefs and Ideology
Language Management
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) affirmed the right to education
without discrimination. Article 2 of this document specifically addressed discrimination on the grounds
of language. Five years later, a well-cited UNESCO (1953) report expanded upon this by suggesting that
education in the mother tongue serves multiple purposes: It is axiomatic that the best medium for
teaching a child is his mother tongue. Psychologically, it is the system of meaningful signs that in his
mind works automatically for expression and understanding. Sociologically, it is a means of 26
identification among the members of the community to which he belongs. Educationally, he learns more
quickly through it than through an unfamiliar linguistic medium. (UNESCO, 1953, p. 11) A 1999 UNICEF
statement similarly acknowledged the value of mother tongue instruction: There is ample research
showing that students are quicker to learn to read and acquire other academic skills when first taught in
their mother tongue. They also learn a second language more quickly than those initially taught to read
in an unfamiliar language. (UNICEF, 1999, p. 41) Ten years later UNESCO (2003) reiterated these points
and stated that essentially all research since 1953 has confirmed the value of education in the mother
tongue. Evidence from research studies in the Philippines and elsewhere played a role in convincing
policy makers of the potential benefits of mother tongue instruction for language minority students. The
benefits highlighted in these studies include improved academic skills (Cummins, 2000; Thomas &
Collier, 1997; Walter & Dekker, 2011); stronger classroom participation (Benson, 2000; Dutcher, 1995);
increased access to education (Benson, 2004c; Smits, Huisman, & Kruijif, 2008); and development of
critical thinking skills (Brock-Utne, 2006). Research has also noted the effect of multilingual education on
cultural pride (Cummins, 2000; Wright & Taylor, 1995); increased parent participation (Cummins, 2000;
Dutcher, 1995; D‘Emilio, 1995); and increased achievement of girls (Benson, 2005; Hovens, 2002).
Another major benefit of mother tongue instruction is the foundation it builds for gaining literacy in
additional languages (Cummins, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Two 27 hypotheses relate to this desired
outcome: the ―threshold level hypothesis‖ and the ―interdependence hypothesis‖. Skutnabb-Kangas
and Toukamaa (1976) proposed the ―threshold level hypothesis‖ which suggests that only when
children have attained a threshold of competence in their first language can they successfully gain
competence in a second language. This hypothesis was formed as a result of research with Finnish
children who had migrated to Sweden. It was found that children who migrated before they had gained
literacy in their first language did not develop second language literacy as successfully as those who
migrated after they developed first language literacy. Based on these findings, Cummins (1984) devised
the widely cited ―interdependency hypothesis,‖ which asserts that the level of second language (L2)
proficiency acquired by a child is a function of the child‘s level of proficiency in the first language (L1) at
the point when intensive L2 instruction begins. He distinguished between two kinds of literacy:
interpersonal communication and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Interpersonal
communication refers to oral communication skills use in conversational settings, while CALP signifies
the point at which the speaker can use language in decontextualized ways, such as through writing
where language is a cognitive tool. Cummins concluded that L1 competency would be more easily
transferred to L2 competency when CALP has been mastered.

Language Beliefs and Ideology

Several authors have discussed language ideology as an important component of language policy
(Schieffelin, Woolard & Kroskrity, 1998; Spolsky, 2004, 2011; Spolsky & Shohamy, 2000). The most
commonly cited definition comes from Silverstein (1979), who described it as ―sets of beliefs about
language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and
use‖ (p. 193). This definition emphasizes ideology as the shared beliefs of group members about
language and its role in society. Spolsky and Shohamy (2000) furthered this definition by suggesting that
ideologies are affected by a group‘s consensus about ―which [language] variety is appropriate for which
speaker to use when addressing which listeners for which purposes‖ (p. 4). As these definitions imply,
language ideologies are highly contextualized and dependent upon many factors. They are formed
through historical and socio-cultural circumstances and influenced by ―the experience of a particular
social position‖ (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 58). While beliefs may differ from one person to the
next, there is commonly one dominant ideology within a ―community‖. Individual beliefs at the micro-
level are influenced by the macro-level socio-cultural context and vice versa. 31 This complex interaction
yields group ideologies that favor or do not favor particular aspects of language. Part of the complexity
arises in the relationship between policy statements and local-level beliefs. Spolsky (2011) suggested
that schools commonly reflect the ideological values of those at the national level because of the
expectation that they will carry on the established ideals. This is echoed by Shohamy (2006), who
described the tendency of teachers in a top-down policy environment to be ―soldiers of the system‖.
However, ideologies are not simply imposed upon individuals by the ―‗official‘ culture of the ruling
class‖ but are represented by a diverse set of implicit or explicit beliefs held by members of the
community (Kroskrity, 1998). While language ideologies at the local level may be influenced by the
policy statements and national expectations for policy change, they are deeply engrained and not easily
altered. Guskey (2002) proposed that a change in beliefs requires an observation or experience that
challenges the existing idea. Since ideologies are beliefs that are rooted in historical, political, and socio-
cultural contexts, this change is a long and complex process.
Language Management

Language policy is often implemented from a top-down approach in which a national governing body
makes decisions to be implemented at a local level. These topdown approaches are typically prescriptive
and generalized across multiple contexts. As Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) stated, top-down policies
―come from people of power and authority to make decisions for a certain group, without consulting
the end-users of the language‖ (p. 196). They are appealing because of their ability to reach out broadly
36 through legislation or executive orders, as well as the political strength associated with their
messages (Matland, 1995; Ricento & Hornbeger, 1996). Spolsky‘s (2004) notion of ―language
management‖ aligns with a top-down policy approach. He defined it in his book Language Management
(2011) as ―the explicit and observable effort by someone or some group that has or claims authority
over the participants in the domain to modify their practices or beliefs‖ (p. 4). Given the nature of the
definition, language policy decisions tend to be made for all by just a few. Even though language policies
are often made in positions of authority, the decision to adopt them may be in response to pressure
from advocacy groups, nongovernmental organizations, or other funding agencies. Globally and
regionally, there is increased interest in the use of the mother tongue as a language of instruction in
education. International organization such as UNESCO, intergovernmental agencies such as SEAMEO,
and various donor agencies advocate for this policy shift. In addition, organizations such as SIL
International and Save the Children have actively promoted MTB-MLE through their work in the
Philippines, as well as in many countries around the world. In many instances MTB-MLE reforms start as
small pilot projects through the support of an international organization. The intent is to build political
and national support for the program‘s expansion by sharing the success stories of the pilot programs.
This was the case in the Philippines with the Lubuagan MTB-MLE program described earlier, but has
occurred in hundreds of other communities around the world. Experimental programs are helpful for
understanding on a small-scale how a multilingual 37 approach can be implemented within a local
context and considering the availability of resources and technical support (Benson, 2004c). However,
scholars acknowledge that moving from experimental pilot phases to more widespread implementation
is one of the most difficult aspects of language planning and policy (Benson, 2004a; Dutcher, 2001).
Programs may find success at community levels, but their national implementation is detracted by larger
systemic issues. Political, economic, and social issues often collide at the national policymaking level
around language of instruction in schools. For example, in Bolivia the Educational Reform Law of 1994
called for the introduction of all indigenous languages into primary bilingual schooling. This reform was
legislated and implemented in a top-down manner but was met with much resistance from communities
and other stakeholders (Benson, 2004a). Similar resistance has been noted in South Africa (Bloch,
Guzula, & Nkence, 2010) and Ethiopia (Ambatchew, 2010). Benson (2004a) says ―even when policy is
made, implementation is not guaranteed‖ (p. 59).