Isabela State University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Echague, Isabela

Subject: Sed 222: Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Societies

Instructor: JOY MARY P. PDDAYUMAN
Module 1

Overview of Language Policy and Practice in Education Around the World

Learning Outcomes:
After completing this chapter, the student is expected to:
 Describe the contrasting policy environments for language education for learners from non-
dominant language communities and approaches to the implementation of MTB-MLE as applied
in different national of regional contexts;
 Have the confidence to dialogue efficiently about policy change and approaches to the
implementation of the MTB-MLE with stakeholders from multiple sectors;
 Have grown in their capacity to plan and implement advocacy strategies to better advance and
support language education for speakers of non-dominant language communities.

Introduction
The phrase language policy will mean the legislation on and practice pertaining to the use of languages
in a society – often a nation, whereas the phrase language-in-education policy will be used to describe
the legislation on and practices pertaining to languages or media of instruction and languages of literacy
used in basic education. As we consider language policy, it’s helpful to review the role of language in
society. Language has many forms – for example, there is a written form, a spoken form, a formal variety
and informal varieties. Language also has many functions – it is used as a medium of communication in
different places and as language for specific purposes. Language and languages are also given different
value by different people. Some languages are considered prestigious while other languages are
considered to have less value. This may be related to the material qualities of the language – the
presence of a writing system or the production of reading materials in that language.

Edwards (2009) emphasizes the fact that, in mosT parts of the world, multilingualism is a reality, linked
with geographical and environmental factors as well as economic interest fueling migration. The role of
power relations is also an important theme associated with civil and international conflict as well as the
impact of colonization. More recently, the impact of digital technologies has shaped the ways in which
people communicate and choices of when and how different languages are used. When languages come
into contact with one another as people move for social, economic, or enforced purposes, the power of
a larger or dominant language may cause a non-dominant language to become weaker or to choose to
use the non-dominant language into fewer domains. Speakers of non-dominant languages may begin to
feel ashamed of their language, believing the dominant language to have greater value.

Government policy can contribute both to the revitalization and to the decline or death of a language.
Robinson (2005:3) notes:
“linguistic diversity should not be seen as an insuperable problem, but as a key factor in
designing intervention in literacy and other areas of development. It is not unknown for linguistic
diversity to be lauded as an important and valuable manifestation of cultural diversity, while
being described in the same context as an impossible problem in terms of educational usage.”
The intention of this lecture is to view both multilingualism and multiculturalism from an enabling
perspective, countering a deficit perspective, and to acknowledge and affirm the languages of
ethnolinguistic communities as a dynamic aspect of identity.

1. Language Policy and Planning

National governments and regional agencies such as ASEAN or the European Union, determine language
policies, determine which languages will be used for what purposes, including deciding on the language-
in-education policy. Indeed, Tollefson and Tsui (2004:2) note that it is common for the educational
argument for a specific language-in-education policy to be subservient to the sociopolitical or economic
agenda of the nation. And that responses to multilingualism within a nation can result in a variety of
responses from policy makers.

Ruiz (1984:17) identifies three perspectives on language planning in multilingual situations. Language
can be seen as a problem where multiple languages make mass education difficult and, thus, one
language and one culture are preferred and supported, whereas others are less valued. Alternatively, it
is possible to view language as a right and determine that speakers of non-dominant languages have the
right to maintain their ethnolinguistic identity and use their languages in education. From this
perspective, linguistic and cultural diversity are encouraged and supported. In addition, in this paradigm,
language can be seen as a resource where linguistic and cultural diversity fosters creativity and the
exchange of ideas, and languages are seen as contributing to the richness of a nation.

In the following section, examples from different regions of the world illustrate the challenges of
determining language policy.

1. Africa
In the 10960s, a group of linguists from nations in post-colonial Africa and academics from
around the world met to discuss the impact of social change and national integration on
language use and language development. FERGUSON (2006:2) acknowledges the work of
Fishman (1968:7) who describes the challenges of the language policy issue in these states
as a tension between nationalism – the cultivation of national identity – and nationalism –
the development of ‘operational efficiency in administration and economic management for
the maintenance of political stability.” The proceedings of this Conference were published in
the Fishmen, Ferguson, & Das Gupta (1968) volume entitled “Language Problems of
Developing Nations.” The assumptions g=behind this title and their implications are worthy
of critical analysis. In this context, it could be said that language planning was organized
around a European notion of the nation state in which the citizens are “unified around a
common language” (Ferguson2006:4). This led to multilingualism being perceived as
inefficient and having the potential to promote disunity in the early years of independence
when social cohesion and economic development were core national goals. In these models,
planning is assumed to be necessary and desirable, and language planning tends to become
a centralized process that is done by those with technical expertise and authority.

However, as research on the cognitive and affective benefits of multilingualism has

developed and post-colonial confidence has grown – while still concerned about the need to
link with new globalization processes and opportunities – academics have increasingly been
calling for the role of international/colonial languages such as English. Portuguese and
French to have a more restricted role and an increases role to be accorded to African
languages. However, this does not always mean that learners are receiving instruction in
their mother tongue even though the national languages might still be unknown by learners
from rural areas or smaller, non-dominant language communities.

1.2. Asia

India
The Ethnologue lists more than 400 different individual languages for India. How does
this vast country with a population of over 1 billion respond to the challenges of
linguistic diversity, particularly in the provision of education? In India, Hindi, written in
Devanagri script, and English operate as official languages for central government, but
the individual states are given the opportunity to decide what languages they will use
for local administration and education. This has resulted in 22 languages being
recognized for official purposes in India and supported through legislation. For example,
(Edwards 2009:22), Telegu is the official language of the Andhra Pradesh and Malayalam
is the official language of Kerala State. It would be common in India for people, for
example, to speak one of the smaller, non-dominant languages at home, to use a
second language in business or the marketplace, and possibly, a third language for
educational and government purposes. The language-in-education policy requires states
and local authorities to endeavor to provide elementary education in the mother tongue
for all linguistic minorities, regardless of whether their language is official in that state.

1.3. Europe
The Industrial Revolution, with the increased mechanization of production systems and
the move from agriculturally-based economic systems, was a major turning point in
social and political history. Until the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the early part of
the 19th century, communities tended to be geographically isolated and the impact of
national culture on local communities was limited (Cartwright 2006:196). This can be
seen in the Celtic-speaking peoples of Britain, the Basques in Spain and the Frisians of
the Netherlands. However, post-Industrial Revolution, the dominant language
communities, often those holding greater political power, adopted an assimilationist
approach to national language, education and economic policy, assigning resources
based on the potential of communities to contribute to national development
strategies.

Wales
Industrialization and the resultant internal economic migration from more rural
countries to South Wales is identified as a key factor in the decline of the Welsh
language in the early 20th century (Ferguson 2006:89). This was coupled with migration
from England and Ireland into South Wales for employment, adding to the
Anglicalization of the region. This increase in language contact meant that Welsh
increasingly became a language that had limited function in a community where English
was used in multiple domains. English speakers remained monolingual and Welsh
speakers were required to become bilingual, a unidirectional bilingualism. Culturally,
immigration from England to Wales diluted the traditional function of Welsh language in
religious and social life (Edwards 2009:13), replacing them with the political and social
institutions of English culture. The exclusion of the Welsh language from formal
education, as determined by the 1870 Elementary Education Act (Ferguson 2006:89;
Edwards 2009:13), was an additional factor in the decline of the Welsh. As English
 became increasingly used in governance, law and education, the domains in which
Wlesh was perceived to be functional were reduced and the Welsh language was seen
as a cultural artifact, irrelevant to progress and modernity. It was not until the increased
nationalism of the 1960s and beyond that the encroachment of English was addresses.
The Welsh Language Act of 1967 gave official equality to Welsh and English but had
limited impact on domains of use. One initial and significant victory for activists was the
establishment of a Welsh language television channel in 1982. It was not until 1993 that
Welsh and English were accorded equal status in public life and in legal domains.
Bilingual education became a key component in language revitalization in Wales, with
an increasing number of children from English-speaking homes learning Welsh in school
and becoming functionally multilingual.

Luxembourg
Language policy in Europe continues to be strongly influenced by social and economic
concerns. This is illustrated by the changes in the language policy in Luxembourg, a small
nation-state in Western Europe where many of the population are already bilingual or
multilingual, particularly in either French or German. The government gave status to
Letzeburgesch by establishing it as the national and cultural cohesion and to mitigate
against the linguistic influences from neighboring countries. However, as documented
by Canagarajah (Ricento 2006:160) the move from an industrial economy to
Luxembourg’s development as a center for the international banking sector has
emphasized the need for Luxembourg’s citizens to become increasingly fluent in English,
French and German. Education in Luxembourg includes the more dominant regional
languages from the early grades, with the goal that, by the end of secondary school,
learners will be sufficiently trilingual to use Letseburgesch, French and German for a
variety of purposes.

2. Language Policy in the Philippines

A scene-setting Filipino perspective on the challenges of language and education is offered
by Bautista (19993:113) who notes that,
“The language problem of the Philippines, according to most Filipino sociolinguists, is
the problem of reconciling the competing demands of ethnicity (embodied in an individual’s
mother tongue or vernacular), nationalism, (manifested in having and propagating a
national language) and modernization (seen to be synonymous with using an
international language).”
Tollefson (1991:142) and Rappa & Wee (2006:72) discuss the complementary roles of
Filipino and English. English is seen as an instrumental language of modernity, supporting
economic progress. Filipino is viewed as a means of reinforcing the ideological status of the
Philippines as an independent nation-state, facilitating inter-group communication within
the country while preserving aspects of national identity.

Thus, the design of appropriate approaches to language education for learners in the
Philippines is a complex issue given the diversity of languages, culture and pre-school
experiences brought to school by children in a nation of 7,000 islands in which more than
180 languages are spoken (Lewis et. al. 2015). The Philippines Education for All report
(World Education Forum 2000: Internet article) states that, although the Philippines has had
few problems or deficiencies with respect to access and participation in the primary
education level,
An understanding of language-in-education policy development in the Philippines is best
understood through an awareness of both international strategies associated with language
policy and practice. Concerns about school enrolment, attendance and retention of all
learners in school were a focus of both the Education for All strategies and the Millenium
Development Goals. Inclusive strategies that would address the needs of minority language
communities and multilingual contexts formed a theme for the 2015 World Education
Forum in Korea (WEF 2015).

Language policy as it relates to education cannot be examined in isolation from the

community and the broader social, economic and political contexts that impact provision
(Rassool & Edwards 2010:280). May (2001:167) notes that education is viewed as perhaps
‘the key institution’ in the development and maintenance of the modern nation-state and so
the policies and -practices that enable the provision and delivery of, particularly, basic
education, are foundational in establishing appropriate systems. With more than 180
minority language communities (Lewis et. al. 2015), the Philippines has a rich and diverse
linguistic and cultural heritage. However, these communities face challenges and
marginalized identity on a national level, particularly in terms of appropriate education and
development opportunities/ Alternative policy solutions are required if equitable access to
and opportunity for education is to be achieved contributing to poverty alleviation and more
equitable democratic societies. Many Philippine languages and cultural practices are lost as
a result of the increasing power of the national language, Filipino, and the role of English as
an official language. As these languages become more widely used, the identities of non-
dominant language communities are undermined. This can result in social and economic
inequalities, giving those who do not learn Filipino fewer opportunities to participate in
public life, access to higher education, influence political decisions and embrace economic
opportunities. Many social, political and economic challenges can be linked to the root
cause of an exclusionary language and education policy.

The language policy of the Department of Education (1974, 1987) required the use of
languages of instruction: Filipino and English. Other languages were permitted only as
“auxiliary” languages in the classroom, not in textbooks or in written form. The intent was to
bring the country together under two languages and promote fluency in English and Filipino.
However, this marginalized 70% of learners by conducting learning in languages that only
communicate to around 30% of the population. On the basis of the recommendations of the
Soriano Committee, the National Board of Education issued Resolution No. 73-2, s. 1973 and
on June 19th 1974, (Sibayann1978:308) the official policy on bilingual education in the
Philippines was instituted by the Department of Education and Culture and Sports (DECS)
Order No. 25 titled “Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education” (Sibayan
1978:302; Espiritu 2002: Internet article; Gonzalez 2007:368).

The teaching methodology described in the 1974 language policy prescribes that the teacher
use either Pilipino or English, depending on the subject. Subjects were divided into the
English domain and Filipino domain (Gonzalez & Sibayan 1988:1). English was defined as the
language of instruction for the delivery of English Communication Arts, Mathematics and
Science. Pilipino was to be the medium of instruction for all other subjects in the curriculum,
the intent was that the implementation of the Bilingual Education policy should be a phased
transition (1974-1978) in order to allow schools in non-Tagalog-speaking areas to prepare
needed materials and train teachers to teach Pilipino. Tagalog-speaking areas were to adopt
the new policy immediately. The full implementation of the policy in the elementary and the
secondary schools was to be achieved in all areas by 1982.

Essentially, this is the policy that has continued in Philippine Schools into the 21 st century
(Gonzalez 1996:210; 2007:368; Young 2011). Vizconde (2006:267) describes the 1974 policy
as beginning a significant improvement in language teaching. Teachers no longer so reliant
on structured drills and memorization that were features of the English-only policy, but
were increasingly aware of methodologies that were consistent with second language
acquisition approaches. The Bilingual Education Policy was subsequently revised in 1987 by
the DECS Order No. 52, s (DECS 1987a; DECS 1987b). In this revised policy, the regional
languages were elevated to the role of “Auxiliary languages”. The purpose of the policy was
the Philippines should become a bilingual nation with a population competent in both
English and Filipino. This has been seen as a more realistic interpretation of the earlier
practice Gonzalez & Sibayan 1988:508), not dependent on the availability of materials in the
local vernacular languages, but leaving the use of the local language to the discretion of the
individual school teacher and giving freedom to school administrators and teachers to
choose and develop their own curriculum to suit local conditions and needs. Gonzalez
described it as (1998:508)
“a recognition and legitimation of the on-going practice of using different media of
instruction in class including the use of home language for explaining content taught in
Filipino and English.”

2.1. The Role of English in the Philippines

The use of English, a result, primarily, of the American colonial legacy, has had a
considerable impact, particularly in the education system, with some believing that it has
damaged the self-esteem of ethnolinguistic communities and the internal unity of these
communities. Tiu (2005:8) stated:
“….American colonial education has tranquilized our minds. Until now, it has continued
to divide our communities, our intellectuals and academics disdaining to talk in their own
languages – in the languages of their peasants and workers. When are we going to return to
our own people and restore the oneness of our communities?”

In the more rural communities, people may not have had much exposure to either Filipino
or English and children may begin formal schooling at six years old with little knowledge of
either Filipino or English, the major languages of education.

There is strong support for the use of English in education and society for instrumental
purposes. House Bill 4701 on “Strengthening and Enhancing the Use of English as the
Medium of Instruction in Philippine Schools was passed in the House of Representative in
2006 (Licuanan 200c). President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo certified the House Bill as urgent
and it received strong support from the business community, which saw the use of English in
school as a component towards increasing the global economic competitiveness of the
Philippines. However, Acuna & Miranda (1994:7) state that there is “hardly any clamor” for
English to be the national language. The most powerful lobby for continued emphasis on
English comes from the private business sector, the media, political circles, and some
educators (Licuanan 2007:Internet article). This lobby argues that the use of English is
related to the Philippines; global competitiveness and the country’s comparative advantages
in its large English-speaking work force, particularly the potential of the Philippines retaining
its OFW workforce. Both Filipino educators and the Filipino public realize that English is now
a najor world language and competence in English gives new access to global opportunities.
Sibayan (1999g:205) notes:
“The lesson for the Philippines is clear: it is not necessary for all Filipinos to learn English,
especially intellectualized English, provided we can develop Filipinos so that most of the
world’s knowledge can be made available and accessible in that language and Filipinos may
be educated in Filipino from kindergarten to graduate school.”

Regarding English language competence for overseas employment, Acuna & Miranda
(1994:7) found that English taught in the Philippine schools has not necessarily prepared
migrant workers for the jobs that they would prefer. Students can only gain access to
scientific and technical knowledge through English as most scientific journals and papers are
written in English (Nettle and Romain 2000:32). However, in 1994, former President Ramos
said (Brigham & Castillo 1999; Young 2011),
“Since we have that comparative advantage in English, by all means let us maintain the
advantage so that we can be more competitive in business and production and perhaps in
education in this part of the globe.”

[Link] a Multilingual Education Policy

There is comparatively little written about the contribution of the many vernacular
languages of the Philippines to education and development. This may itself be indicative
of the value assigned to the languages of the provinces and the minority ethnolinguistic
communities by the language policy developers.

The First Iloilo Experiment was undertaken from 1948-1954 by Jose D. Aguilar (Sibayan
1999c, 1999e, Nolasco 2008:7) who pioneered in the use of Hiligaynon as medium of
instruction in Grades 1 and 2. The tests showed Hiligaynon-taught children
outperforming the English-taught children in reading, Math and the social studies. The
study not only showed L1 students being able to transfer the knowledge they learned in
their L1 to English. It also found the L1 students catching up t=with the L2 students in
their knowledge of English within six months after being exposed to English as medium
of instruction (Young 2011).

Other related programs that can be mentioned are the Second Iloilo Language
Experiment (1961-1964), the Rizal experiment (1960-1966) and the six-year First
Language Component-Bridging Program (FLC-BP) on “transition” education in Ifugao
province; and the Lubuagan First Language Component (Walter and Dekker 2008).
However, despite these innovations supporting the use of local languages in education,
the Bilingual Education policies primarily acknowledged the use of the vernacular
languages of the Philippines as auxiliary languages to be used orally.

However, towards the end of the Arroyo administration, it became clear that a response
was required to the low educational achievement of Filipino students as revealed on
international tests, which led to the institutionalization of mother tongue-based
multilingual education initially through the Department of Education Order No. 74 s.
 2009 (DepEd 2009) which was a significant milestone in the journey to establish
equitable systems for learners from all ethnolinguistic communities of the Philippines
(Young 2011). This was the point at which the language-in-education policy in the
Philippines moved from a Bilingual Policy to a multilingual approach, recognizing the
diversity of linguistic richness in the nation and its contribution to effective learning.

On September 14, 2020, the government-initiated Alternative Learning System (ALS)

Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples (Ips) Education was institutionalized through DepEd
Order No. 101. This also moved multilingual policies and awareness of the importance of
language-in-education from only the formal sector to the non-formal sector.

2.3 Institutionalization of MTB-MLE

Finally, in 2013, the Philippines education system, through Republic Act 10533 and the
associated implementing rules and regulations, in addition to mandating a 13 year, K-12
education system, specified (Section 10.2.0 that the Curriculum for basic education in
the Philippines
"... shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already know
proceeding from the known to the unknown instructional materials and capable teachers to
implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available. For this purpose, MTB-MLE refers to formal
or non-formal education in which the learner’s mother tongue and additional languages are used in
the classroom;”
Continuing (Section 10.4), the guidelines describe the allocation of language. For Kindergarten and the
first three years of elementary education, instruction, teaching materials, and assessment shall be in the
regional pr native language of the learners. The DepEd shall formulate a mother language transition
program from the mother/fir5t language to the subsequent languages of the curriculum that is appropriate to
the language capacity and needs of learners from Grade 4 to Grade 6. Filipino and English shall be
gradually introduced as languages of instruction until such time when these two (2) languages can
become the primary languages of instruction at the secondary level.
The approach to mother tongue-based multilingual education described in the Republic Act reflects best
practice in program implementation and is aligned with theoretical positions on program design and
development posited by educators (Baker 2006, Dutcher 2004, Cummins 2000). Pragmatically, the
Department of Education has decided that an incremental approach to supporting minority ethnolinguistic
communities in the provision of mother tongue-based multilingual education has the potential of allowing
systematic curriculum and materials development and equipping of teachers and educational
administrators. Thus, currently, nineteen languages (Abueg 2015) are included in those being supported
through the Department of Education central office, although other ethnolinguistic communities are.
developing materials and implementing multilingual approaches at regional and division levels.