When Reforms Don't Transform: Reflections on Philippine Education (Last Part in a Series)

UP Centennial Lecture; November 12, 2008 (DRAFT)
by Ma. Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Allan B. I. Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo

The Case of Language and Education

Our contention is that learning has not been the true focus of reforms though these have been touted as their primary objective. The most glaring example of this is the policy on the medium of instruction. We will convince you that the child’s language is best as the first language of education. We will offer four hypotheses explaining why the DepEd has not morphed its policies and practices / according to the scientific evidence on language, literacy and learning and on the socio-cultural premises of education.

Our first consideration is the linguistic context of the Philippines. We are a multi-lingual nation with more or less 171 living languages. Filipino is spoken by at least 84% of the population. Philippine English is spoken by 56% of the population and is still an official language of government, business and education. There are 10 regional lingua francae.  Additionally, Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish are also valued. All these constantly interact as people move from place to place, meet sweethearts from across the river, or migrate from town to town. In short, the average Filipino is quadrilingual.

If we subtract 15 widely spoken languages from all of our 171 unique tongues, there remain 156 other vernaculars actively used in daily living. In addition, we aspire to teach our citizens to be fluent in our national language and competent in English. With the institutionalization ofthe Madaris schools by the DepEd, Arabic is llikewise a language to be learned in schools.

Given the socio-linguistic landscape of the Philippines, multilingualism should be placed at the center of the education discussion. Multilingual persons have unique linguistic configurations made up of interacting systems of phonology, semantics, and syntax in their linguistic repertoire. Drawing from the findings of Philippine research, bilingual Filipino children are of two types. First are children who learn the first language at home and then acquire additional languages from their community.  The second are those without a singular mother tongue. That is, they reside in home environments with two or more languages perpetually used.  These children are, from the beginning of their lives, bilingual. In both instances, it can be said that Filipino children acquire one to two languages spontaneously, and, learn the next languages in school.

The medium of instruction issue in Philippine basic education is a recurring nightmare. For over 80 years,the recommendation to use the child’s language in schools as the medium of learning has been consistently rejected. From the 1920s to the present, the pressures exerted by different sectors and advocates in the name of nation building, global participation, regional identity, cultural integrity, or economic progress and overseas employment caused decisions on the language issue to swing from one extreme to another. The pendulum stopped dead center resulting in the Department of Education and Culture (DEC) Order No. 25, series. 1973 or the Bilingual Education Policy. This compromise policy operationally defines the nature of bilingual education in the country. The curriculum was divided according to languages. Pilipino, changed to Filipino in 1987, was designated the medium of instruction for social studies, music, arts, physical education, home economics, practical arts and character education. The English language domains were math, science  and technology education.

Where has the Bilingual Education Policy or BEP brought us? This question would be best answered by studying the performance of school children in all the subject areas of the curriculum and correlating these with implementation assessments of the BEP. Unfortunately,longitudinal data based on stable product assessments of language and overall learning are not available.

The fact that achievement in English and Filipino has been low suggests that the BEP implementation has not resulted in improved proficiency in both languages. This policy seems to have grossly failed to support learning of the two languages, much less, learning content through the use of these languages.

Generations of teachers consistently report on the difficulties their students face while learning English and Filipino, and, worse, while trying to learn math and science in English, and social studies in Filipino. Percentage of schools that surpassed 60% on the National Achievement Tests in Math, English, Science and Overall across 3 years. It suggests that performance in English is much lower than performance in Math and Science.

This leads us to an important question: How then can English be the language of learning if it is not strong enough to support learning? The children have obviously not reached the required cognitive academic language proficiency in English to use it for learning Math and Science.  BEAM’s Regional Assessment of Math and Science data bolster this observation. Students whose teachers shifted to the vernacular in explaining concepts had better scores on questions that measure higher order thinking skills.

Therefore, it seems that English was not used as the language for teaching Math and Science. Otherwise, performance in these two subjects might have been even lower. Thank goodness for teachers who were sensitive enough to use the language of the children to explain Math and Science. Possibly, the teachers themselves were not proficient in English and thus resorted to expressing their thoughts in the vernacular. The latter inference is consistent with the frequently lamented English language proficiency of teachers. Could it be that they themselves are victims of the implementation of a flawed policy?

The bilingual education policy of DepEd is not cognizant that language and learning are conditional processes as evidenced by the division of core subjects according to language.  This was done despite DepEd’s close ties with the UNESCO, which since the 1950s, has advocated for the use the mother tongue as the first language of education; and despite the findings of its own superintendent Jose V. Aguilar in 1948 which showed that children schooled for two years in their native language surpassed the performance of other students in all subjects by the end of Grade 3. Studies done over the last 50 years including those done within and by the DepEd have affirmed and confirmed similar findings. This proves that foundational language learning is positively related to learning content and additional languages.

Difficulties experienced by children in learning the languages as a result of the division of the curriculum according to languages may have dampened their interest to learn the content areas. Instead, , English and Filipino could have been learned using any topic or issue of interest to the learner. The use of storybooks, poetry and song would have done beautifully in supporting language development especially in the early years. Furthermore, it would have promoted cultural literacy.

Languages matter in child learning. As a powerful cultural marker, the child’s language should be respected in schools. Sadly, children are still being penalized for speaking their own language in school premises. Long ago, the fine was at 25 centavos per word. Now, because of inflation, the going rate is five pesos per word spoken. It is curious where the fine goes.

Language use in schools impacts on the affective side of learning. Children who are made to read in a language they do not understand get into the habit of not thinking about what they read. Worse, their self-esteem suffers. On average over 30 years, the Philippines’ highest drop out rate in the elementary level is at Grade 2. Maybe, the children’s engagement with school has been hampered by their inability to cope with the language requirements exacted by the curriculum. Children experiencing failure in reading and writing in Filipino and English lose their motivation to attend school. They feel marginalized in classrooms that are supposed to liberate their minds.

The challenges that children encounter due to the lack of oral language background in the target languages create multiple layers of difficulty. Students have to learn two unfamiliar languages simultaneously. They have to master the vocabulary and grammar of these languages to make meaning. While doing that, they have to learn to read. Then, they have to be quick because they have to learn social studies, math and science at the same time. Though there is an 8-week induction curriculum for Grade 1, it is impossible to develop mastery in Filipino and English in such a short period of time. If you were a child, would you still want to go to school?

Teachers’ understanding of the relationship between multilingualism and multiliteracy has direct bearing on how they teach children how to read. Teacher education curricula do not explicitly include training on understanding this relationship. In so doing, the mistaken notion that literacy develops in the same way in any language is perpetuated. Yet all Grade 1 teachers will tell you that it is easier to teach children to read in Filipino because it has a simpler orthography and has a more familiar vocabulary than English. If schools for teachers only paid attention to the observations of teachers in the field, then the teaching of reading would have long started from the language children already knew. Instead, the reading comprehension problems so frequently reported in both public and private schools prevail.

What has kept the DepEd from developing bilingual competence among Filipino children? We offer four points of analysis.

First, it formulated a weak policy on bilingual education. The BEP does not stand on strong theoretical grounds. It ignored the long-standing and empirically validated view of how learning best happens among children and how new language learning should be built upon a mastery of the child’s native language. Furthermore, the policy also glossed over the sociocultural issues in education / by relegating the local languages as auxiliary media of instruction.

Second, the DepEd relinquished control over the curriculum decades ago and handed it over to politicians, most of whom disregard scientific research and the experiences of teachers in favor of their own personal anecdotes.

In 1939, the Education secretary decided on the language issue precisely because of its curricular significance. In our time, the DepEd fence sits and waits for directives from the Office of the President, legislators or donors. With the prospect of employment for Filipinos in the call-center industry and resource management sector, the Arroyo administration is aggressively championing the use of English as the medium of instruction in Philippine schools through Executive Order 210 of 2003. This has been seconded by House Bill 4701 on "Strengthening and Enhancing the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction in Philippine Schools.” This proposed legislation seeks to make English the medium of instruction from Grade 3 onwards. Ironically, these are advanced in the context of findings that teachers’ language proficiency is at the Grade 3 level. The incongruity between reality and policy directives by the present administration is disturbingly glaring in its obvious disregard of scientific evidence.

On the other side is House Bill 3719, “An Act Establishing a Multi-Lingual Education and Literacy Program” written by Congressman Magtanggol Gunigundo which espouses the use of the mother tongue in all grades of elementary education. The Gunigundo bill is backed up by research is a breath of fresh air among all the other opinions emanating from the House of Representatives about the language issue.  However, whether ill or well-advised, the two House Bills will still end up telling the DepEd what to do.

DepEd, is the teacher of the nation. The hierarchical obeisance within DepEd has hindered it from performing this role to the fullest. Like all teachers, it must advocate for its students’ best interests. The political motives of those promoting the sole use of English as medium of instruction must be thwarted by the DepEd to protect the Filipino child’s right to quality and relevant education. The 2006 BESRA reform strategies for language and literacy education and their necessary support mechanisms intended to do just that. However, two years hence, the DepEd has yet to herald the BESRA language recommendations as its own.

Third, the situation is exacerbated by the relative absence of serious efforts on the part of DepEd to educate legislators and the rest of society. While it is true that many representatives have not attended the congressional committee hearings on bills pertaining to language, it is also true that those who represented the DepEd could not articulate the DepEd position on the matter adequately. Thus, it is not surprising that legislators have glossed over what the DepEd may have wanted to communicate. Instead, they focused solely on employment growth paradigms in deciding on the language of education while ignoring the widely accepted research on culture, learning and child development. By keeping learning in the periphery and targeting overseas employment, policies may arise that encourage shortcuts to learning and thus, stunt cognitive development among children.

Finally, the DepEd has been unable to negotiate a shift from structural learning paradigms to more socio-constructivist methods of teaching and assessment of language and literacy.  Teachers narrate that lessons continue to be taught by rote. The emphasis on products rather than learning processes has been anathema to the formation of functional, critical and creative thinking. The influence of BEAM and TEEP has obviously not permeated the entire system even if together, these two major reform efforts, spanned about 33% of all Philippine elementary schools.

Another important aspect is the lack of recognition of the power of teachers to make or break educational innovation. It is important that teachers believe in the programs they are implementing. According to the report of Dumatog and Dekker in 2003, after some years of implementation of the first language component, “Teachers now realize the potential of their own vernacular and culture to be a spring-board for enhancing children’s reading comprehension.

“Individual differences” is a simple and fundamental principle in education which means that teaching must start with the students’ strengths. This is based on the view of learning that children will eventually traverse the unknown if they are able to connect this to what they already know.

To be consistent with this principle, education should begin with the child’s language before systematically moving towards our desired additional languages.

Conclusions

In the past hour, we have tried to show why education reforms do not transform.

First, it is because of a highly centralized system that does not give teachers and principals the freedom and responsibility to make the best schools for their children and communities.

Second, it is because of the projectized-approach to reform, when key reform thrusts are externally induced and then dropped once the project is over, and where there are weak institutional systems for processing and scaling up successful reform innovations.

Third, it is because reforms have focused on education inputs such as school buildings, textbooks, computers, teacher training, and have mistakenly assumed that these will automatically yield better learning performance and outcomes.

Fourth, it is because learning has been simply assumed. It has actually been taken for granted in the reform processes. Reforms have failed to directly probe into the questions of what students should be learning, how learning becomes relevanT and the ways learning can happen in the context of diversity among children and communities. Amidst all this, we argued that there has been no understanding of learning as an organizing framework for schools and their transformation.

As a result of the confluence of these factors, we now have an educational system that is tireless in its repetition of problems and so-called solutions. We have not actually improved our schools, developed life long learners, and citizens with the competencies to improve their personal circumstances while transforming Philippine society for the better.

We have also suggested the features of reforms that can actually transform.

First, we need to anchor reform in a fine appreciation of the various forms and ways of learning that will be functional and transformative to the individual and to Philippine society.

Second, we need to break away from the one-size-fits-all mindset when formulating solutions to our educational concerns, whether these refer to teaching practices, textbooks, learning activities, assessment procedures or the languages of learning.

Third, we must recognize the importance of formal learning experiences in basic education so that these can serve as scaffolds for subsequent learning requirements and choices. At the same time, we need to value both formal and alternative learning systems as viable venues for building desirable competencies.

Fourth, we need capable and empowered teachers and school heads who would be responsible for making decisions on what educational inputs and learning systems will work best for the learners in their schools and communities.

Fifth, we need to fast-track moves to decentralize the educational system, and support schoolbased management that is anchored on learning-oriented principles and the aspirations of their immediate and larger communities.

Our lecture put learning at the heart of its recommendations to swing the pendulum away from the unquestioned assumption that it just happens in a black box to which various inputs are thrown. We understand why the pendulum is on the side that relegates learning to the margins. The pressing issues that emanate from an increasing need for education services such as classrooms, learning materials, and teachers, and their inequitable distribution, demand urgent and immediate attention. We are not denigrating the role of inputs in facilitating or mediating the learning process. Indeed, we have seen how the delivery of such inputs to poverty-stricken schools has roused communities to participate in the education of their children. Our appeal, however, is for learning to be the reference point of all our education reform interventions.

On the other hand, we also realize from the experiences of highly effective learning-oriented projects like IMPACT and BEAM that enabling conditions such as decentralization have to be in place. Since these conditions run against prevailing institutional systems and practices, their realization calls for reformist interventions that are integrated rather than disjointed; comprehensive rather than piecemeal; simultaneous rather than sequential.

Moreover, these reforms should be adaptive to different socio-cultural terrains; and conducted on a scale that will make a difference. We are saying as well that the decentralization efforts in education ought to be seen as a movement that engages communities on the ground as well as virtual communities of education advocates. In this regard, BESRA is certainly a positive step forward. Our recommendation is to expand it to include all post-secondary education.

But comprehensive frameworks do not make reform. To illustrate, we do not only have the law for decentralization in basic education, we also have well articulated frameworks like BESRA. Reforms do not transform when such laws and frameworks are not implemented with the passion and organization of reformists. We need a roadmap, detailed implementation plans, and the organization to tap into the energies of education reformists inside and outside the bureaucracy and channel these to the schools.