THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID ABOUT THE DECLINE IN English proficiency in
this country. But legislating English as the medium of instruction—as proposed by the
Gullas Bill—is not the solution. In fact not just English, but also Science and Math
proficiency will decline should this law pass. Rather than propose that English be the
sole medium of learning, we should in fact promote multi-lingualism: English, Filipino and
the local language or dialect. The Japanese will never forego Nihonggo for English, nor
will the Chinese abandon Mandarin or Cantonese for the so-called global language.
Neither would the Scandinavians, Germans or (mon Dieu!) the French. Why then are we
so quick to ditch Filipino for English? The overall concern about the decline in English
proficiency is both correct and misplaced. Many employers speak of job applicants with
appalling spoken and written English skills. They argue that this deficiency is a “lost
comparative advantage” as shown by the dismal hiring rates of the growing call center
industry. But is poor English proficiency really the cause of our global uncompetitiveness?
Or is it our low productivity and the inability to deliver consistent quality that hurt us? The
problem is not poor English. It is poor English, Science and Math skills. Weak English
proficiency is not the sole determinant of poor overall achievement; it is merely a factor.
Unesco findings show that young children learn how to read and acquire numeracy faster
and better when taught in their mother tongue. Their achievement rates in higher-grade
levels are better than those who are taught in a language other than what they speak at
home. These findings have been replicated by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL),
which uses the mother tongue for teaching young children in Bukidnon and in other areas
with indigenous people. These pupils have had relatively high literacy and numeracy
scores in DepEd (Department of Education) tests.
The TIMSS (Trends in Math and Science Survey) test is administered here in English,
making us one of the very few countries that take the test in a language that is not
generally spoken at home. We do poorly in TIMSS. (The Japanese take TIMSS in
Japanese; the Finns in Finnish.) But would taking the test in Filipino make for better
scores? The Department of Science and Technology did conduct such a test in Filipino
and the results were equally dismal. Therefore, it’s not so much language; it is simply
that children aren’t learning Science and Math well enough to solve problems. On the
other hand, “Sine’skwela,” the Science program on television, is broadcast in Filipino.
Dr. Milagros Ibe, then head of the National Institute of Science and Math Education
(Nismed) at the University of the Philippines wrote: “Testing in English does not
significantly disadvantage pupils who are taught in ‘Sine’skwela’ using Filipino as a
medium. Understanding of the concepts in Filipino appears to facilitate transfer of
learning to English.” These children however are not fluent in English. In fact, “[they]
find it hard to communicate and express themselves in English during recitations and
discussions.” But clearly, these children learn Science and Math: “Pupils in Grades 2
and 3 who watch ‘Sine’skwela’ attain master-level in 50-67 percent of the concepts
learned, while those not exposed to the program master only 20-33 percent of the
same …. Pupils in the lower grades are capable of responding to 4-option multiple choice
questions .… Longer tests (i.e., more than 30 items) can also be used for them.” In East
Asia, the national or local language is used as the medium of learning for young children.
English is taught as a subject—not as the medium of learning—and proficiency is seen as
a key to connecting to the world, not as the key to learning. We, however, seem to want
to shortcut learning. We want to connect to the world to be competitive before we learn
the fundamentals. The current DepEd policy on the medium of learning set by former
Education Secretary Andrew Gonzalez is sound. Brother Andrew was after all a linguist.
The policy says that the child’s mother tongue shall be the medium of learning in Grades
1 to 3 because the 3 R’s and fundamental Math and Science concepts are introduced at
these grade levels. Makabayan (Social Studies) shall be taught in the mother tongue as
well. English and Filipino are to be taught as subjects. If Mandarin someday became the
global language for business, would you—an English speaker—learn your Science and
Math concepts if it were taught to you in Mandarin? Probably not. The same would hold
true for the young learner anywhere in this archipelago who does not speak English—or
Mandarin—at home. For Grades 4 to 6, there is a progressive shift to English as the
medium of learning for English, Science and Math subjects. By this time, the concepts
have taken root, and problem-solving and application are the learning objectives. Filipino
will still be used to teach Filipino and Makabayan subjects. For high school, the mid-grade
policy on language is expanded. The Gullas Bill is now in Congress, having been passed
at the House of Representatives. Ironically, it does not deviate from the current DepEd
policy. It is a dangerous bill, however, because it places a misleading emphasis on English
as the medium of learning. As such, the young learners and their teachers will concentrate
on the language, not on Science and Math and literacy (that is more fundamental to
learning). The key to better English is better implementation; more teacher training in
grammar, composition, vocabulary; more mechanisms to expand English usage in schools
such as campus journalism, campus radio, assigned days for English and Filipino
communication and the like, more bilingual reading books and
elocution contests and spelling bees (both in English and Filipino). English is essential for
communication, but Science and Math are crucial for competitiveness.
We need to be more creative and committed to better English teaching, but not at the
expense of Science and Math. Legislation is not necessarily creative. The Gullas Bill in
fact ignores world experience on learning by prescribing a solution that misses the problem
completely: Why are Philippine schoolchildren not learning?
*Juan Miguel Luz is president of the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and a former
education undersecretary.
|
