Philippines Debate Use of Filipino as Instruction Medium

Gloria E. Melencio, Arab News

MANILA, 20 August 2006 — Like restive Mayon Volcano, debate on whether the Filipino language is a
failed language that should be replaced again by English is threatening to explode.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has categorically instructed the Department of Education (DepEd) to
return to the use of English as the medium of instruction in the Philippine schools. This has stirred adverse
reactions from academicians, linguists and nationalists lambasting it as a betrayal of Filipino nationhood.

The president is alarmed with the continued decline of the English proficiency in schools that has said to
have begun when the Filipino language was officially declared as the medium of teaching in 1989.
“Filipinos’ fluency in the English language has fallen after it was scrapped,” Arroyo said.

The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) has also begun providing free courses in English to
overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). Said the OWA’s former administrator Wilhelm Soriano: “Although
proficiency in the English language is not the only basis for the continuous high demand for OFWs, it
remains as one of the assets and as such must be preserved.’”

Alarmed at the population’s declining proficiency in English, the DepEd has restructured the curriculum
this school year to give special emphasis and increased time for English. Private schools have readily
obliged. They have been using the English language from way, way back anyway. But public schools have
yet to comply.

The question Filipino nationalists have to confront now is: Is Filipino a failed native language?

Lack of Understanding

Ten leading institutions and organizations of academicians and linguists that count the University of the
Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University, the Philippine Normal University, among others, have expressed
dismay over the president’s directive to replace Filipino as primary medium of instruction.

In a joint statement issued and circulated in the intellectual community, they said that the president
misread the constitutional provision Article XIV, Section 6 explicitly directing “the Government ( to) 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.”

Another pitfall cited is the president’s failure to understand the scientific and modern learning principles
that prove that a child learns faster in the native tongue. These learning principles have been validated in
experiments and studies even before the implementation of the bilingual policy in Philippine education.
The Iloilo experiment in the 1960s showed that Filipino youths learn faster and better in their native
language. The EDCOM Report (1998) said: “Test results showed that the highest scores were obtained by
those who studied science in their own language...like the Japanese and Korean children.”

Another point of contention is: Must English proficiency be the gauge of one’s intelligence?

Deputy Majority Leader Eduardo Gullas, a lawmaker from Cebu, contends that Filipino children failed in
the recent math and science tests given by DepEd because they have poor English. He further explains:
“To begin with, math and science manuals and most other books for that matter are in English, so
learning becomes extremely difficult if the student has deficient English.”

Had Gullas spent some time to go over the results of the Third International math and science Survey
(TIMMS), he could have advised the president that English proficiency is not the gate pass to a true-blue
intellectual activity that is asked of the rigors of math and science.

Math and Sciences

TIMMS, a prestigious group of researchers and academicians coming from all parts of the world, found out
that the United States, an English speaking country no doubt, miserably placed 17th in science and 28th
in mathematics!
Surprisingly, the countries whose people are not English speakers and who use their native tongues as
medium of instruction are in the top rung. These are Singapore, South Korea, Czech Republic, Japan,
Bulgaria, Netherlands, Hungary, Austria and Belgium.

And where did the Filipino students, said to be the best English speakers in Asia, land? At the tail-end,
where else?

Another thing that TIMMS expounds on is the amount of time and money spent on teaching math and
science.

A country’s budget on education and the length of time spent inside the classroom are also not measures
in teaching well. The study found that the Czech Republic and Korea allot a small budget for educating
their children but placed considerably higher than Germany and Great Britain who are big spenders.

The number of students per class does not also matter in getting high marks, TIMSS proves.

Countries such as France, USA and Great Britain have small number of students per class but got low
ranks than Singapore and Hong Kong that have the highest number of students in class in the whole of
Asia.

In the Philippines, a recommendation to use Filipino as the sole medium of instruction in the primary level
of education is under way. Hong Kong and China are currently implementing this effectively, UP, Ateneo,
PNU and other pro-Filipino language institutional advocates contend.

“Such a system that emphasizes the role of the first language will produce students who are literate in
Filipino and very ready to learn English and in English. We suggest that we invest in the training and the
retraining of our teachers. Our normal schools should get a bigger budget to invigorate the teaching
profession. We should earnestly develop and produce textbooks written in Filipino to support this proposed
national language program. We laud the administration’s commitment to build more schools but a parallel
support should be infused into the raising of the quality of education,” the joint statement further
explains.

The quality of teachers teaching math, science or English should also be upgraded, the statement said.

Teachers teaching Filipino children were also urged to continuously update themselves and make the
teaching profession as exciting. The educators called on the government to look into the teachers’ meager
salary. Low government support discourages teachers and lowers their morale, thereby making jobs such
as domestic helpers and chambermaids a come-on to them.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 210
May 17, 2003
ESTABLISHING THE POLICY TO STRENGTHEN THE USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS A
MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

WHEREAS, Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution provides that for purposes of communication
and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law,
English;
WHEREAS, it is a declared policy of the State to promote education as a means to achieve and maintain
an accelerating rate of economic development and social progress;
WHEREAS, there is a need to develop the aptitude, competence and proficiency of our students in the
English language to maintain and improve their competitive edge in emerging and fast-growing local and
international industries, particularly in the area of Information and Communications Technology [ICT];

WHEREAS, strengthening the use of the English language as a medium of instruction also depends on the
improvement of the entire educational system, particularly in the training of educators and the provision
of learning materials and resources;
WHEREAS, the Department of Education [DepEd], the Commission on Higher Education [CHED] and the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority [TESDA] fully support the policies sought to be
established herein and have favorably endorsed the issuance of this Executive Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policies. - The following policies are hereby established:

a. English shall be taught as a second language, starting with the First Grade.
b. As provided for in the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum, English shall be used as the medium of
instruction for English, Mathematics and Science from at least the Third Grade level.
c. The English language shall be used as the primary medium of instruction in all public and private
institutions of learning in the secondary level, including those established as laboratory and/or
experimental schools, and non-formal and vocational or technical educational institutions. As the
primary medium of instruction, the percentage of time allotment for learning areas conducted in
the English language is expected to be not less than seventy percent (70%) of the total time
allotment for all learning areas in the secondary level.

It is the objective of the foregoing policies to develop the aptitude, competence and proficiency of all
students in the use of the English language to make them better prepared for the job opportunities
emerging in the new, technology-driven sectors of the economy.
SECTION 2. Institutions of Higher Education. - Institutions of higher education, including State
Colleges and Universities [SUCs], are hereby encouraged to adopt the use of the English language as the
primary medium of instruction in the tertiary level. The CHED shall adopt measures to promote and
encourage the use of the English language as the primary medium of instruction in the tertiary or higher
education level.
SECTION 3. Proficiency of Teachers. - The DepEd, through the National Educators' Academy of the
Philippines [NEAP], the Educational Development Project Implementing Task Force [EDPITAF], the CHED,
the TESDA, as well as through the educational institutions in the private sector, shall evaluate the
proficiency of educators in the English language and conduct training programs nationwide to develop and
improve it.
SECTION 4. Support Mechanisms. - The implementing authorities specified in Section 5 hereof shall
undertake to secure the funding support necessary to provide adequate learning materials and resources
that will develop the aptitude, competence and proficiency of students in the English language. They shall
also collaborate in developing an evaluation instrument that will make it possible to monitor the progress
of educators and students in achieving the policy objectives established herein.
SECTION 5. Implementing Authorities. - The DepEd and the TESDA are hereby directed to take active
steps to ensure the implementation of this Executive Order and monitor compliance therewith in all public
and private institutions of learning in the elementary and secondary levels, including those established as
laboratory and/or experimental schools, and non-formal and vocational or technical educational
institutions.
SECTION 6. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The DepEd, the CHED and the TESDA are
hereby authorized to issue the appropriate rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the
policies established herein.
SECTION 7. Report to the President. - Within thirty (30) days from the issuance of this Executive
Order, the DepEd, the CHED and the TESDA shall submit to the President a plan of action to effectively
implement the provisions of this Executive Order.
SECTION 8. Use of the Filipino Language. - Pursuant to the Constitutionally-mandated policy of the
Government to ensure and promote the evolution, development and further enrichment of Filipino as the
national language of the Philippines, the Filipino language /shall continue to be the medium of instruction
in the learning areas of Filipino and Araling Panlipunan.

SECTION 9. Guarantee of Academic Freedom. - Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed as
limiting the academic freedom of institutions of higher education.
SECTION 10. Repealing Clause. - All executive issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof which
are inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SECTION 11. Effectivity. - This Executive Order shall take effect immediately upon approval.
City of Manila, MAY 17, 2003

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

By the President:
(Sgd.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO
Executive Secretary

Filipino vs. English as the medium of instruction

The English vs. Filipino debate is once again a hot topic.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the government?s policy of using English as the
medium of instruction in our schools. According to those who filed the petition, the push for the use of
English in our classrooms will only lead to further deterioration of what?s already been described as a
rather inferior quality of education.
Those who support the 2003 Executive Order filed by President Arroyo on the other hand argue that doing
away with English as the medium of instruction will inevitably hurt the country and our people more
because they believe that a less competitive workforce will emerge.
I find myself a bit torn with this issue.
3 months ago, I would have been right on the side of government. Having had the opportunity to travel
and study abroad, I fully recognize the value of being able to speak and write fluently in English. I know
that it was due in part to my English proficiency that I didn?t have as much difficulty in trying to find a job
as the rest of my 'international' friends. I didn?t have to enroll in ESL classes which could have delayed
my program for another year. I didn?t get lost around town as much and I was able to meet and make
friends easily because there was no language barrier. So, I really benefited a lot from learning English in
my grade school and high school years.
But then three months ago, I also didn?t know much about the state of education in the Philippines.
Fortunately, since I returned, I?ve learned quite a bit about the ?ills? of our public education system. I
guess this is why I find myself torn.
I recognize that learning to speak and write in English in this age of globalization is necessary especially if
we would like to be able to compete in the knowledge-based world. Such a training can best be done in a
classroom. But if we look at things realistically, it seems like our public education system is just not set up
for this yet.
And so I just can?t help but wonder? should we really impose a certain language as the primary medium
of instruction? I understand that standards are needed and must be met. But couldn?t we perhaps just be
a bit more liberal with our views? Shouldn?t teachers be allowed to use the most effective communication
tools that will allow them to articulate their lesson plans best? Wouldn?t that, in the end, help their
students to grasp the material better and truly learn?

Lapus orders the use of English as a medium of instruction

In support of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s issuance of Executive Order No. 210, “Establishing the
Policy to Strengthen the Use of English Language as a Medium of Instruction in the Educational System,”
and to further intensify the program, Education Secretary Jesli Lapus issued its implementing rules and
regulations through DepED Order No. 36, s. 2006.

The guidelines were formulated for the effective implementation of the provisions of EO 210 and to
reiterate the increased time allotment in the use of English for classroom instruction.

The education chief prescribed that English shall be taught as a second language starting in grade one.
He stressed that as provided in the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum, English should be used as the
medium of instruction for English, mathematics, and science and health starting in grade three.
The English language shall be used as the primary medium of instruction in all public and private
schools in the secondary level, including those established as laboratory and experimental schools, and
vocational and technical institutions,” Secretary Lapus added.
In the secondary level, technology and livelihood education, music, arts, physical education and
health, and Citizenship Advancement Training (CAT) shall also be taught in English. Filipino, araling
panlipunan and edukasyon sa pagpapahalaga shall be taught in Filipino.
 “As the primary medium of instruction, the percentage of time allotment for learning areas conducted
in the English language should not be less than seventy percent of the total time allotment for all learning
areas in all year levels,” he added.