By Estanislao Albano, Jr.
Note: I was about to let go of the refusal of the Rappler to publish my rejoinder but changed my mind when they gave the reasons for their decision.
Although I said I respect the decision not to publish my reaction to the two articles of Firth McEachern, Elizabeth Calinawagan and Ched Arzadon on the Mother Tongue issue, after learning of the reasons for rejection, I would like to make an appeal.
Regarding the reason “not clear in refuting the other essay,” although not necessarily accepting that the piece was glancing or outside the topic, may I request that the attached piece now zeroing on the failure of the Mother Tongue policy to deliver on its promise to make learning of reading be considered? Let me explain how my response hits the nail in the head.
Per DepEd Order No. 74, series of 2009, the reading claim makes up two-thirds of the alleged advantages of the Mother Tongue policy: “The preponderance of local and international research consistent with the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) recommendations affirms the benefits and relevance of MLE. Notable empirical studies like the Lingua Franca Project and Lubuagan First Language Component show that:
First, learners learn to read more quickly when in their first language (LI);
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; and
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 competencies more quickly.”
There is enough evidence to prove that during the implementation of the Mother Tongue policy, the reading crisis reached full-blown status two of which I have mentioned in previous versions of my reaction. I would argue that with seven regional offices acknowledging the problem starting from 2018 to present via official issuances addressing the same and/or release of information on their non-readers like Bicol and the Cordillera did recently, the phenomenon escalated during the implementation of the Mother Tongue policy. I noticed that it was only in late 2019 Rappler started publishing stories mentioning non-readers indicating that previously, you did not consider the problem to have reached newsworthy status which in itself could be taken as an evidence it got worse during the implementation of the Mother Tongue policy.
I believe that the reading promise is not included in the results of the Mother Tongue education the authors referred to when they said that the Grade 1 to 3 model Mother Tongue model is too short to yield excellent results as that would be an admission that the method cannot ensure it could make children read in three years. In all previous language policies, learners learned to read in English in Grade 1. I qualify that in the case of the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP), that was until the DepEd reset the reading cut off to Grade 3 with the “Zero Non-reader in Grade 4” policy back sometime in early 2000s. However, Mother Tongue apologists cannot hide behind the refusal of the DepEd to implement the reading cut off because before it falls, the policy already has three years with the learners which is already thrice the time previous language policies made children read and it is supposed to get the job done quicker.
With that, I would say that I refuted this portion of their first article: “One of the main motivations for Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education was to improve the quality of education. International and local research has convincingly shown that children learn more efficiently and effectively through the language that they habitually speak at home (UNESCO, 2011). This makes sense, because the language you speak with your family is generally the language you know best. Therefore, development of literacy skills (like learning how to read) is faster in your mother tongue than through a second language.” The problem of non-readers exploded in our faces on the seventh school year of the Mother Tongue ergo, the new language policy is not making children learn to read faster but even slower.
Even granting that there were flaws in my arguments and evidences, I am sure that in the minds of your readers, that would have been sufficiently made up for by my willingness to conduct a joint validation with any comer of the assessment of teachers I have talked to that the Mother Tongue has caused a two grade level retrogression of the quality of our basic education. Needless to say, most people would agree that the actual effect of something is still the best proof of its real worth.
I was not just passing on the allegation of the teachers. Their estimate approximates what I found in my investigation of what ails our basic education the results of most which have been published in 15 reports in the Manila Times. The articles cast our basic education and DepEd in very unflattering light with one even reporting that it is not just in the teaching of reading that the DepEd is failing in but likewise in the teaching of handwriting and spelling but the agency must be grudgingly accepting the allegations as it never tried to debunk them despite my requests for comments for some of the articles. If the Rappler wants to take on the challenge to validate our assessment of the damage wrought by the Mother Tongue policy, I am on.
After all, as of 2020, six batches of pupils already underwent the Mother Tongue policy and its high time to find out if indeed the policy is an improvement or inferior to the old policy even just in the area of beginning reading which is supposed to be its strong point.
As for the reason that the writing needing to be “tighter and cleaner,” I must admit that the edited versions are the end of my writing competence and gladly submit to editing. I would not go so far as admit though that Pamela Garcia who wrote the opinion piece “The ‘pasang-awa’ culture we (un) knowingly embraced” posted on December 5, 2019 writes significantly better than I do. By the way Garcia falsely claimed that in response to “PIDS studies”, “the education department already urged educators to stop promoting non-readers to the next level” because no such action has been taken by the DepEd. There are non-readers in the Cabasan National High School this school year according to your story “School principal calls on gov’t to provide free internet access to Albay island town.” Had DepEd made such an advice or instruction, the logical vehicle would be DepEd Memorandum No. 173, series of 2019, but there is absolutely nothing there as to when a child should be able to read let alone what to do with him if he could not read at the end of the school year and remediation period.**
