Another pedagogical mess?

Concerns have been felt recently by education officials and other stakeholders on the proposal from a Cebu board member to make Cebuano the medium of instruction in the elementary grades. If the Board would give a nod to this proposal, the Cebu school system is bound to be shaken again as it was when then governor Lito Osmeña ordered public schools to use Cebuano in all Filipino (Tagalog) based subjects.

Like the current initiative, that brainer of the former governor was designed to make school children exposed to a major aspect of their cultural heritage, which is their native language. It was a laudable intention, no doubt about that, for who would not want his children to love and appreciate their ethnic way of life? The mistake, however, was that beyond issuing the ordinance, the provincial government did nothing else to ensure its implementation.

The result was a pedagogical mess. Textbooks in five subject areas were in Filipino, but teachers were made to write their lesson plans and prepare their instructional materials in Cebuano. They were to discuss their lessons in Cebuano too, under threat of penalty if they did not. In some ways, concept development on the part of the children was facilitated. However, semantic precision was a problem because the teachers had not been trained in Cebuano grammar and syntax.

As DECS director then, I asked Manila to fund the translation and reproduction of Filipino books into Cebuano. The answer: Since the provincial government initiated the project, the funds should be locally sourced. Sadly, the Cebu government refused to be that source. And so the problem was left unresolved for years.

The recent proposal to make Cebuano the medium of instruction in the grades partly dovetails with DepEd's current language policy as articulated in DepEd Order no. 74, s. 2009, entitled Institutionalizing Mother-Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE). Here's a quote from this issuance: "The use of the learner's First Language (L1) as the primary medium of instruction (MOI) from preschool until at least grade three. During such period L1 shall be the main vehicle to teach understanding and mastery of all subject areas like Math, Science, Makabayan and language subjects like Filipino and English."

How can you teach Math and Science in Cebuano when textbooks and supplementary materials are in English? Perhaps P.E., Industrial Arts, Home Economics, Health, and Values may be taught in L1, but Biology, Chemistry and Physics? What about Calculus, Quadratic Equation, and other complicated numeric operations?

In the same department order, DepEd tries to justify this policy with the following statements: "First, learners learn to read more quickly when in their first language; second, pupils who have learned to read and write in their first language learn to speak, read, and write in a second language (L2) and third language (L3) more quickly than those who are taught in a second or third language first; third, in terms of cognitive development and its effects in other academic areas, pupils taught to read and write in their first language acquire such competence more quickly."

Despite these justifications one cannot accept without reservation DepEd's MLE thrust. Probably these findings are based on preliminary studies, or those conducted in other countries where situations are not comparable to those obtaining locally. This being the case, and without extensive consultations from various sectors, it was inadvisable for that department to "institutionalize (MLE) as a fundamental educational policy and program…in the whole stretch of formal education..."

Institutionalize a multilingual education? The leadership of DepEd must have been out of touch of reality. Is it not aware of the damage wrought by three decades of its bilingual education program which forces non-Tagalog pupils to learn their lessons in a language not their own? Is it not aware of the dislocation of these pupils' mindset in learning English, now the global language of technology, economy and diplomacy?

There is no quarrel but that MLE is supportive of the thrust towards mastery and appreciation of one's native tongue. But like the local proposal to use L1 as the language of instruction, its implementation must be carried out without sacrificing the learning and mastery of English. Better still, intensive trialing and extensive consultation must first be conducted before pursuing this new language program to ensure positive outcomes.

* * *

Email: [email protected].