Clash of local tongues

The issues surrounding language development are myriad and complicated as we deal with its varieties and dynamics. This is a true picture in the formulation and development of local orthography for the Department of  Education to implement in the regional level in compliance to its K to 12 program whose salient feature, among others, is the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE).

Do we have to unearth and bring the past to the present times? Or start from what we have? This has been a recurring issue being brought to the discussion table every time local language experts merge to formulate a standard lexicon. As a member of  the Cebuano Language Commission of  the province, every time I attend a conference, local linguists, academe, literary writers, press,  and other individuals would like to assert their propositions in endless discussions that at the end of the day leaving us still in a state of oblivion.

The purists would insist that some vocabulary words shall be incorporated. Frankly, these words are unheard of and difficult to pronounce therefore making teaching and learning equally grueling. And even a DepEd official, in her 60s, admitted to have difficulty in uttering. Primarily because they are not anymore used by the present generation, and mother tongue is about what is being used by the child at home, comfortable and familiar to him. Learning those antiquated words would complicate what our children have acquired and used in their daily social interactions.

The orthography or the art of writing words with the proper letters according to accepted usage, has not even finalized as conflicts would arise when local language experts convene. This puts the Department of  Education regional office in a wait-and-see situation.

But when do we stop this scenario? It is already on our third year of program implementation and yet this is still the mode and level of discussion. Who then are affected? Unfortunately, first, the teachers. Teachers up until now are still in the quandary as to whose version to follow. What then is the final version? Or when can they have the final version? And the second and the ultimate losers-our students.

Good that we have creative and innovative teachers. But I can't help to think of a system that implements program haphazardly. Teachers are already in their classrooms with their students. They can't wait any longer for the arrival of the modules and other teaching materials. They just have to make do with what they have. But this is not supposed to be the case if only we have program planners and designers who are time-conscious.

Teachers' training is even much to be desired. Teachers are less prepared or totally unprepared. With the new curriculum and a new subject or instruction, this indeed renders our teachers in total limbo.

But going back to the seemingly unending bickering among local language experts, this shall be put to rest. Our learners are ready. We don't want to delay their learning just because of some overwhelming assertions. We need to be aware that the system has started already and it's difficult to unlearn what our students have started. Compromise is the key. In the end we are all guided by the aim of preserving the beauty and aspirations of our very own language.

I fully support this program as I am alarmed that for the longest time we insisted on English as our medium of instruction in the basic education yet we have forgotten the fact that we are all slowly have been estranged from our local heritage. We have been trying so hard to sound American, think American, and look American. In this process, we are slowly losing our own identity.

In a meeting of  brilliant minds, clash of insights is inevitable. But where will this lead us to? When will this end? The education sector can't wait any longer, much more the end beneficiaries, our schoolchildren.

The discussion has to end for the refinements to commence.