When the trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) report came out in 1999, it showed the Philippines languishing at the bottom. Many wondered whether it would have mattered if the tests were taken in the national language, instead of in English.

This issue was explored in 2000 by Leah Nillas of Illinois State University. She found out that students who took the tests in English outperformed those who took them in Filipino in all five content areas. Her sample consisted of 6,601 Filipino seventh graders in 114 public schools and 36 private schools throughout the country.

However, Nillas pointed out that the practice of teaching and testing in different languages was unfair. If the language of testing is Filipino, then the students should have been given the equal opportunity to learn Mathematics in that language. But because instruction was all in English, plus the fact that Tagalog/Filipino is not everyone’s first language (L1), this somehow rendered the results of her study difficult to interpret.

Earlier, in 1999 a smaller but more robust study by Dr. Allan Bernardo of De La Salle University investigated the effects of different learner and instructional factors on solving arithmetic word problems among grade school students. The results showed better comprehension and solution performance when the tests were in the learners’ L1 in spite of being taught in English. Bernardo asserted that for non-English L1 speakers, the lack of English proficiency constrained their learning and academic achievement.

After a century, what have we to show for our “English-dominated” education? One out of three Filipinos, aged 10-64, cannot understand what they are reading. No more than 10 percent of Filipino learners achieve at least 75 percent ratings in all areas of the national tests.

While there are a variety of reasons for this sorry state of affairs, we cannot ignore the fact that education is primarily a language-mediated enterprise. Research indicates that a learner who is not fluent in the teaching medium loses at least 20 percent of lesson content.

The case of Malaysia is enlightening. That country changed its medium of instruction to English in 2003, at about the same time an executive order was issued here to strengthen English.

After five years, Malaysia is contemplating on going back to its mother tongue and Bahasa Malaysia policy in basic education. This happened after a study showed English-taught pupils doing poorly in tests in Mathematics (7.89 out of 20), Science (4.08 out of 14) and English (11.87 out of 30). Three out of four pupils complained of hardly understanding their teachers’ English. Moreover, in 2003, Malaysian students used to rank No. 10 in the world in Mathematics; in 2007, they were down to No. 20. Last March, thousands of Malaysians took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand the withdrawal of the all-English policy.

In the Philippines, stakeholders have also been trying to convince education authorities to allow L1 use in basic education as a bridge toward learning in the officially prescribed languages. In fact, the provincial boards of Ilocos Norte, Cebu and Pangasinan, together with the Naga City government, filed separate resolutions to this effect.

The Department of Education has responded by issuing Department Order No. 60 which encouraged teachers to train, develop materials and pursue teaching methods in mother tongue instruction (MLE). It has sought help in this regard from the UP College of Education and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL).

In a statement last May 8, Education Secretary Jesli A. Lapus finally admitted that children learn very little in a language they do not speak or understand, clearly referring to English and Filipino. He also said that they are able to conceptualize better and think deeper in their L1.

Last April and May, two MLE workshops were conducted for teachers of the Department of Education—one in University of the Philippines Diliman and another in a Valenzuela City school. Led by UP Prof. Dina Ocampo and SIL’s Diane Dekker, the UP workshop managed to produce more than 100 quality “BIG books” and teaching aids in 10 Philippine languages. MLE teachers were also sent to a month-long MLE training in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

In Valenzuela City, second district Rep. Magtanggol T. Gunigundo praised the creativity and resourcefulness of the 50 teachers who attended the 10-day MLE workshop there. According to DepEd division chief Joel San Luis, MLE will start in Grade 1 in five of the city’s schools.

The late Rolando Tinio once spoke of a basic fear among us that our languages are undeveloped for use by various “thinkers.” He reminded us that the advanced state of the English language we marvel at was reached and created through the efforts of its users.

The whole point here is that we will never be able to develop our languages for higher thinking unless we begin basic literacy and education in them. It isn’t a matter of first intellectualizing a language before using it. We can only intellectualize a language by using it.

(Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman and the adviser for multilingual education initiatives of the Foundation for Worldwide People Power Inc. His e mail address is rnolasco_upmin@yahoo.com.)