By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
Note: This is the full text of the statement of the Cordillera Advocates for Real Education (CARE) during the Zoom meeting of the House Bill No. 6405 technical working group on March 19, 2021 delivered by this columnist in his capacity as spokesman of the group. Just like the position statement he read in the Mother Tongue policy forum held by the DepEd and the USAID on February 22, 2021 which was earlier serialized here, the paper was unchallenged. By the way, House Bill No. 6405 authored by Baguio City Congressman Marquez Go seeks the abolition of the Mother Tongue policy.
We therefore strongly recommend to Congress through the Committee on Basic Education and Culture the passage of a law fixing the English reading competency in Grade 1. We believe a legislation is necessary because DepEd is convinced of the wisdom of its policy that Filipino children need not learn to read in the primary medium of instruction and test language in Grade 1. One of the strategies of the Sulong EduKalidad is to ensure that all school children become readers by Grade 3 ( TIMSS 2019 Encyclopedia, Philippines chapter, Page 2 https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/encyclopedia/).
Thats even if they are aware of the effects of the delayed introduction of the English reading competency as could be gleaned from the rationale of the Bawat Bata Bumabasa, the response of the DepEd to the reading crisis, contained in DepEd Memorandum No. 173, series of 2019: Low achievement levels in English, Math and Science appear to be caused by gaps in learners reading comprehension. This means there are many low performing learners who could not comprehend Math and Science word problems that is written in English. Hence, they were unable to demonstrate their knowledge in the content areas. Elementary and high school learners are still deficient in literacy skills in language and content areas, more so in reading.
Needless to say, if our school children are learning and are starting to read in English in Grade 1, this problem would not have developed or even if it did, would not be of this magnitude.
During the deliberations on HB No. 6405 last January 28, Director Andaya did not discuss what happened in the PISA, SEA-PLM and the TIMSS merely saying they may not all be due to language because there are other factors which contributed to the dismal results. This is rather unfortunate because better performance in international assessments is a promise of the MTB-MLE implied in DepEd Order No. 74, series of 2009, and the DepEd is not ready to share its findings on how come the results of the SEA-PLM and the TIMSS were the exact opposite of what was expected. We believe that the country specially our policymakers should not be kept in the dark as to why the expected correlation failed to materialize.
To initiate discussion on the causes of the TIMSS and SEA-PLM fiascos and more importantly, find out the role of the MTB-MLE in them, we submit the results of the Pearson Correlation analysis done by Dr. Eduardo R. Alicias Jr., retired UP professor and book author who is also here in the meeting, on the results of the Tagalog regions in the 2016 Grade 6 NAT and 2017 Grade 10 NAT which negates the MTB-MLE hypothesis that Mother Tongue is more effective than English as a medium of instruction.
The analysis concluded that English appears more correlated and/or effective in the teaching-learning of Grade 6 subjects Mathematics, Science, and Araling Panlipunan as measured by 2016 NAT scores while there is no significant positive correlation between Filipino and the teaching-learning of Mathematics. In Grade 10, Dr. Alicias found that the English-Mathematics correlation is much higher at 0.888 than the Filipino-Mathematics correlation which is only 0.592. Likewise, the English-Science correlation is much higher at 0.963 than the Filipino-Science correlation which is only 0.777. On the other hand, the use of Filipino appears more correlated and/or effective (but not much more) in the teaching of Araling Panlipunan (r = .982), as opposed to r = .862 in respect to English versus Araling Panlipunan.
Dr. Alicias said that analysis can be extrapolated to explain our debacles in the TIMSS and SEA-PLM, the first two international student assessment which tested the MTB-MLE and found it severely wanting.
We likewise take exception to the statement of Dr. Nolasco that when compared, the results of the previous language policies and the MTB-MLE are parehong masama. Mas masahol di hamak po ang mga resulta ng MTB-MLE.
First, the Grade 4 pupils in the 2019 TIMSS, the third batch of MTB-MLE products, ate the dust of our examinees in 2003 scoring 61 points or 17.03 percent lower in Mathematics and 83 points or 25 percent in Science than the latter. They also placed last in both subjects against the 2003 batchs third to the last rank in both subjects. This is despite the promise of the MTB-MLE to improve our showing in international assessment surveys. (TIMSS 2003 International Results in Mathematics; TIMSS 2003 International Results in Science; TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science)
Second, based on the DepEd data on the non-reader incidence I have earlier cited, it can be safely assumed that when the DepEd discarded the No Read, No Move Policy in Grade 1 in 2001, the non-reader incidence was negligible or even nil. Now based on the findings of the SEA-PLM, 27 percent of our Grade 5 population could not read.
Finally, the CARE strongly recommends the conduct of a multi-sectoral, thorough and clinical investigation of the effects of the MTB-MLE on learning and learners so that the country specially our policymakers will know the full truth about the impact of the new language policy.
If ever it will be conducted, we recommend that the investigation gives special focus on how come the explosion of the non-reader population during the implementation of the MTB-MLE considering the following facts: first, the MTB-MLE promised to quicken the learning of reading and Filipino children have been reading in Grade 1 for generations as they still do in private schools under the previous language policies; second, we have already seen the devastating effects of the reading literacy deficiency in the results of the SEA-PLM and TIMSS; as already pointed out, we can never talk of quality and competitive education unless children are reading in the primary medium of instruction in Grade 1; and education cannot proceed unless children could read. **
