Mother tongue subject: Improve, not remove
The Department of Education’s (DepEd) new “Matatag” curriculum has some advantages, but in an effort to decongest it, they may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The Mother Tongue (MT) subject has been removed, replaced with a generic “Language” subject that is only in Grade 1.
Here are reasons why the mother tongue, both as a subject and as a medium of instruction, is so important to extend:
Effective learning. A person’s first language (mother tongue) is a key tool for learning almost anything, throughout life, but especially in childhood.
Language development support. While in principle DepEd still supports the use of the first language as a medium of instruction, the absence of the MT subject will make this difficult to sustain. It is in the MT subject where children learn how to read and write in their language, develop good literacy habits by reading relatable texts, and where they accumulate targeted vocabulary essential for learning other subjects.
Language vitality is closely linked with education inclusion. Around the world, a pattern has repeated itself many times: languages included in education are more likely to thrive, while those excluded have a higher chance of extinction. According to Ethnologue, 48 Philippine languages are already endangered. The removal of the MT subject will accelerate the decline of Philippine languages, resulting in an irrevocable loss of Filipino cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and ways of being.
Literature and cultural production. It sends a message that native languages do not matter, that they are disposable and not valuable to learn. This will have a chilling effect on all aspects of education.
Personal and social well-being. Language exclusion can have profound long-term consequences on identity, self-esteem, health, and even environmental factors (Gorenflo et al. 2012; Kesselman, 2017). The effects have been devastating for indigenous communities in many parts of the world (e.g., Canada, Australia, South Africa, China, etc.), and the Philippines should avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Due process. The big decision to eliminate the MT subject was not made democratically. There were minimal, if any specific studies, calls for proposal, design workshops, or consultations about alternative language policy options. There was no referendum.
Human rights. Every child has a right to learn and use his or her language. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that this right may not be denied. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that IP communities likewise have the right to education in their own languages.
Community and investment. Thousands of teachers around the country have spent prodigious time making quality learning materials for the MT subject. More than any other subject, mother tongue has brought community elders, writers, translators, illustrators, teachers, and NGOs together to recall, collect, and create stories, poems, and other literature. Multilingual education has facilitated a cultural renaissance, leaving the dark days of repression behind.
A more responsive and liberating policy framework. While the retention of a first language-focused subject called “Language” is appreciated, one year is not enough. Children are not superhuman. They can only learn so much in one year, and they forget much of what is removed. Besides this, it seems there is political pressure to revert to the old bilingual system dominated by English and Filipino.
Role model. In this International Decade of Indigenous Languages, and as one of the most linguistically diverse countries in the world, the Philippines could be setting an example of how to develop a quality education system that also develops its native languages. The government’s shift to multilingual education was an international milestone, and provided the inspiration of several countries to follow suit. As countries expand access to education in more languages, the Philippines can be at the forefront of this. Now is the time to improve, not remove.
Firth McEachern
