1The Philippines is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia, a multiethnic and linguistically diverse nation with more than 7 100 islands, consisting of three main islands: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Predominantly a Catholic nation, it has the third largest Catholic population in the world, after Brazil and Mexico. At the same time, the southern part of the country is home to a Muslim-majority autonomous region, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The Philippines has over 17 million indigenous people (UNOPS 2025) and 130 recognized indigenous languages. The official language is Filipino, while English is the working language (KWF nd; Symaco & Dumanig 2022: 1).
2The history of language policies in the Philippines is primarily influenced by its social and political colonial past. The Americans introduced the formal education system in 1898 when they arrived in the country after four centuries of colonial rule by the Spaniards. With the establishment of the public school system, teaching English and its use as the medium of instruction (MOI) from preschool to higher education was institutionalized. It must be noted that since the inception of English as MOI, several critics have raised proposals for the use of local languages, with then Secretary of Education Jorge Bocobo (1939) issuing a memorandum that allowed teachers to use the vernacular in teaching. The vernacular education policy was in place from 1957 to 1974 but was discontinued until the bilingual policy took precedence. During that time, experiments were made to use a local dialect—Hiligaynon—in the Visayas and Mindanao regions as MOI in primary schools instead of English (Tupas & Martin 2016: 6). Corollary to vernacular teaching, in 1953, UNESCO declared that the child’s mother tongue (MT) is the best MOI to support early education. Such explicit support for using the mother tongue in education has been consistently expressed in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1960 UN Convention, and the 1999 UNICEF statement, among others (Metila, Pradilla &Williams 2016: 783).
3In the 1973 Philippine Constitution, a bilingual language policy recognized English and Tagalog-based Pilipino as the official languages. However, critics maintain that this policy favoured a select few and furthered an education system partial to the English language (Constantino 1982). Given the vast regional linguistic disparities, critics also questioned the adoption of a dialect, Tagalog, as the basis for what was to become the official Filipino national language. Nonetheless, the 1987 Philippine Constitution adopted a bilingual standpoint with English and Filipino as official languages while recognizing home languages as “auxiliary languages” in primary education. Subsequently, English remained as the MOI in the teaching of mathematics and science, with Filipino as the MOI for other subject areas.
4The adoption of the bilingual policy yielded both advantages and disadvantages. For Tagalog speakers, who mostly came from the central parts of Luzon, its position and dominance as the official Filipino language were cemented (Symaco & Dumanig 2022). On the other hand, English became the dominant language associated with an export-driven liberalized economy that would train young Filipinos to become “export-ready labour commodities to help keep the fledging economy afloat” (Tupas & Martin 2016: 5). Critics also claim that English created a social divide among the haves and have-nots, with more opportunities for employment and mobility among the better users of English (Symaco 2017).
5Between 1999 and 2009, attempts were made to implement an MT-based national education program under Andrew Gonzalez, a linguistics researcher who later served as the Secretary of the Department of Education by including more languages within an unnamed multilingual policy. Thus, in this context of bilingual education in 2009, the country adopted the Department of Education (DepEd) Memo 74, s. 2009, which introduced the mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) policy. This policy teaches MT as a subject and is used as a MOI from kindergarten until third grade (K-3). This development overturned the bilingual perspective, and the marginalization of home languages supposedly diminished.
6Adopting an MTB-MLE policy was also primarily a response to UNESCO’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which aimed to establish universal primary education by 2015. With the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the lack of linguistic capital for many non-dominant language learners is an obstacle that needs to be overcome in achieving the sustainable development goal (SDG) 4 of quality education.
7In the curriculum document that defined MTB-MLE, the Department of Education (2016) stated:
MTB-MLE is education, formal or non-formal, in which the learner’s mother tongue and additional languages are used in the classroom. Learners begin their education in the language they understand best—their mother tongue—and develop a strong foundation in their mother language before adding additional languages […]. This bridge enables the learners to use both or all their languages for success in school and for lifelong learning. In terms of cognitive development, the school activities will engage learners to move well beyond basic wh- questions to cover all higher order thinking skills in L1 which they can transfer to the other languages once enough Filipino or English has been acquired to use these skills in thinking and articulating thoughts. (DepEd 2016: 2.)
8Pado (2020: 219-220) outlined the features of the MTB-MLE program as:
- The medium of instruction in all the subjects from Kindergarten to Grade 3 (K-3) is the learners’ MT or the language used in the learners’ home.
- Initial literacy learning in Kindergarten is in the MT as the MOI. At the same time, children are exposed to oral language development in Filipino (L2, second language) and English (L3, third language).
- By first grade, children are introduced to beginning reading instruction in the MT.
- By second grade, literacy learning in Filipino (L2) is introduced during the first semester while literacy learning is introduced during the second semester. Literacy learning refers to beginning reading and writing instruction. Bridging is expected in this grade level.
- By third grade, children are expected to be reading and writing in MT, Filipino and English with varying degrees of competence.
9Thus, the end goal of MTB-MLE is to develop Filipino learners who are multilingual, multiliterate, and multicultural. It should be noted that the underlying theoretical principles that guide MTB-MLE were taken from Cummins’s work (1984) and the Lubuagan study (1998) by Greg and Diane Dekker on bilingualism and language proficiency. These are discussed below.
10Cummins (1984) first proposed a distinction between two levels of language proficiency: the everyday communicative proficiency called basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) vs. the deeper level of academic language proficiency called cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The distinction was expressed in terms of the “iceberg metaphor” adapted from Roger Shuy (ibid.: 17), which points to two levels: the surface level, which is the visible and quantifiable formal aspects of language (e.g., pronunciation, basic vocabulary, grammar) vs. the underlying, deeper levels of the iceberg as relating to the semantic and functional or pragmatic aspects of language. Cummins (ibid.) argued further that participants rely on “context-embedded” vs. “context-reduced” situations in developing language proficiency. Participants can actively negotiate meaning in context-embedded situations based on situational and paralinguistic cues such as those in informal, daily conversations. In daily interactions and familiar patterns, children’s thought processes and language are primarily interpreted in an embedded context where the speaker’s intentions are easily inferred. However, in the formal environment of the classroom—a context-reduced context—participants must make meaning only from linguistic cues and their understanding of the language itself. Thus, learners who struggle with CALP have difficulties that rest on their lack of mastery of the language and its meanings.
11Cummins (1984) further argued that in bilingual proficiency, the academic skills in the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) are interdependent and manifest a common underlying proficiency (ibid.: 22). Mastery in L1 allows for the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related skills across languages. Thus, L1 oral development and L1 literacy support second-language learning as language skills transfer across languages (Dekker 2017: 21). This hypothesis on the common underlying proficiency in L1 and L2 points out cross-language skills. Thus, the learner’s experience, knowledge, reading strategies, writing skills and thinking skills in L1 influence learning in L2 (Cummins 1984: 23).
12Cummins (1984) lays a firm theoretical grounding for bilingual education, debunking previous perceptions that achieving mastery in L1 hinders learning L2. Instead, his work contributed to the understanding of how cognitively demanding language proficiencies in both L1 and L2 are interrelated. Accordingly, Cummins’ developmental interdependence hypothesis stipulates that the learning of L2 is dependent on the child’s sustained exposure to L2 and the level of proficiency in L1 (Goodrich & Lonigan 2017). Thus, Cummins’ model on the common language proficiency model provided the theoretical backdrop for teaching L1 in the MTB-MLE program in the country.
13The MTB-MLE policy was also heavily influenced by the findings of the 1998 school study initiated by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) in the distant rural town of Lubuagan, Kalinga Province. Kalinga province is in the mountainous regions, some 400 kilometres north of Metro Manila. Lubuagan is a monolingual municipality with few outsiders, where children begin school with no other language except the mother tongue, which is spoken within the Lilubuagen community. Filipino (L2) and English (L3), as used in the classroom, are new languages to the children (Dumatog & Dekker 2003). The Lubuagan MTB-MLE program teaches Filipino and English through MT rather than through immersion in the two languages. The program also incorporates cultural content in the curriculum (Walter & Dekker 2011: 672). In a follow-up study, Dumatog and Dekker (2003) found that teachers reported that the program’s demands increased workloads and were constrained by the lack of time to cover all content areas.
14Walter and Dekker (2011) then compared the learning outcomes of two groups, one in which the local language (Lilubuagen) is used as a language of instruction (the experimental group) and one in which the prevailing national model of providing instruction in English and Filipino is used (the control group) (ibid.: 675). In administering the tests to the experimental group, the researchers developed tests using Lilubuagen (MT) for reading, mathematics and social studies vs. English for the control group. Both groups were tested in English for the English achievement tests and in Filipino for the Filipino subject. The study yielded significant results, the most notable being the achievement of higher test scores of students who attended classes in the MT across all three grade levels and all subjects (ibid.). Nonetheless, the researchers offered a caveat for the findings and proposed that confounding variables may not yield interpretations beyond the small sample size involved.
15Dekker (2017: 155) points out that although there is a massive amount of research that supports MT in developing multiple literacies, the use of MT to achieve proficiency should be for at least five to seven years, alongside English study, to obtain sufficient proficiency levels to learn academic content in and through English. The success of mother tongue education (MTE) has been documented in other linguistically diverse contexts (LDCs). For instance, Metila, Pradilla and Williams (2016) investigated alternatives to the delivery of MTE in multilingual or LDCs, such as the use of a “multiple multilingual” model where students with the same MT are placed in separate monolingual classes vs. the “lingua franca” model where students are taught in a widely used language as the MOI in all classes. However, one model that applies in one LDC may often not be apt in another setting. Research on MTE across different countries reveals creative solutions such as using multiple MTs, code-switching, or multi-grade classes. In the Philippines, linguistic diversity poses inherent limitations to implementing a robust MTB-MLE program. In a case study in the southern part of the Philippines, the adoption of multiple monolingual classes in Zamboanga City in Mindanao prompted a damaging response from its political leaders, calling the practice encouraging “tribal segregation” (ibid.: 783). The rationale for choosing an official local language, Chavacano, for MTE in Zamboanga City was rooted in a sociopolitical context, implying that linguistic diversity leads to social divisions.
16In response to linguistic diversity, the DepEd thus allowed schools to select the MOIs from 19 official MTs based on local contexts. Even then, Metila, Pradilla and Williams (2016) found that across LDCs in the country, a majority of schools (65%) opted to teach single language programs, while difficulties were documented in program designs, as well as issues in teacher training and selections, and connections with the local community and culture. It was further found that teachers used MT and code-switching and largely resorted to translation and bridging for the most part. Across schools, there were also differences in the delivery of MTE, from using a single local language instead of the recommended lingua franca to using multiple languages for teaching, among others. Teachers also lamented that the lingua franca, when chosen as MOI, lacked a formality appropriate for classroom use (ibid.: 787).
17In the MT curriculum guide, the DepEd further stipulates the “two-track method” in teaching MT as the primer track to focus on accuracy and the story track to focus on meaning (DepEd 2016: 2). This method should allow learners to master literacy skills in MT, which will be a strong bridge to learning the language macro-skills in L2 and L3. Several studies discussed in this section attempted to look into how classroom teaching was facilitated and to gather feedback from teachers on the program’s outcomes, in addition to bridging strategies and issues in instructional objectives, as detailed in this section.
18Action research in a first-grade class in a public school yielded results that show that instructional objectives in teaching MT as a subject are not being met. Moreover, learner competencies remain weak (Cruz 2015). It is also reported that the development of learners’ language competencies in the MT remains average, and grammar was made more complex and unclear with the transition to the mother tongue. Language teachers also resort to other dialects/languages to supplement the teaching of language skills, particularly unfamiliar vocabulary and comprehension. Teachers also stated that the lack of training and resources, the need to learn teaching strategies, and the teachers’ level of proficiency in the MT are issues for effective policy implementation (ibid.).
19Perfecto (2022) also investigated the bridging strategies used by Grades 3 and 4 teachers to help multilingual students transition from the MT as MOI to English across different subject areas. The study revealed that teachers utilized different translanguaging strategies: direct translation, code-switching, metalinguistic comparison-contrast and metalinguistic explanation. Given the lack of guidelines on how the transition from MT to English as MOI should be taught, teachers were revealed to have found creative strategies for scaffolding language learning. Both visual tools and linguistic scaffolds, such as translations, were offered to help students learn vocabulary or new concepts in English.
20In a related study, Monje et al. (2019) also reported that teachers think using MT in mathematics and science is too cumbersome (ibid.: 36). Translating curriculum materials in the MT is seen as too demanding, while the lack of orthography and academic vocabulary makes teaching more problematic.
21An evaluation study by the USAID Basa Pilipinas Program (2017) revealed that a strong literacy foundation in the MT is associated with higher Filipino (L2) and English (L3) fluency achievement. The study confirmed that L1 proficiency leads to gains in L2 and L3. However, although first graders do not initially acquire reading proficiency in L2 at the same rate as their L1 in Grade 1, by 2nd and 3rd grade, improvements in reading in both MT and L2 begin to occur at similar rates (ibid.: viii). In determining trajectories for language proficiency in Filipino, the study also found that non-Tagalog learners who are proficient readers in Filipino (L2) initially in 1st and 2nd grade fail to catch up to the reading levels of their Tagalog-based counterparts by 3rd grade. Filipino, the official L2, is primarily based on the Tagalog dialect. As mentioned previously, Tagalog is spoken in Metro Manila and the nearby provinces of Luzon. Finally, the USAID Basa Pilipinas (ibid.) study revealed that Filipino learners cannot be introduced to three languages in the early grades and are expected to be proficient in all three languages by the end of Grade 3 (ibid.: viii). It was found that most of the third graders at the end of the year in the study could not read in either English or Filipino—these difficulties in reading confound academic problems in latter grade levels.
22Overall, the inconsistent teaching practices and outcomes of the MTB-MLE program have raised criticisms. Despite its merits, the barriers and challenges aforementioned (e.g., instructional issues, lack of resources) to its effective implementation remained unaddressed.
23Criticisms were raised against the MTB-MLE policy, citing that, given the country’s multilingual setting, the language policy has fundamentally been an experiment (Senate of the Philippines 2023). Legislators arrived at such a conclusion when education officials were asked what the research basis was for the policy’s adoption in 2013. The Lubuagan study, done in a homogeneous or monolinguistic setting, is often cited, coupled with the lack of a comprehensive evaluation of the program.
24Initially taught as a separate subject for fifty (50) minutes per day for Grades 1 to 3, the DepEd later recommended the removal of teaching the MT as a learning area. Nonetheless, the MT or the local vernacular used in the community can serve as the medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3 (K-3) in public schools. The time spent teaching the MT was devoted instead to the national reading and mathematics intervention programs (Philippine Star 2022).
25Investigations on the failed effective implementation of the MTB-MLE point to structural and theoretical challenges given the country’s multicultural setting (Belvis & Morauda-Gutierrez 2019).
26Monje et al. (2019) also revealed that teachers’ lack of teaching resources and language proficiency in the MT hinder practical implementation. Also, logistic and financial constraints have hampered mainly the MTB-MLE program. When the program was first introduced, teachers also had difficulties appreciating the policy and would comment on how confusion ensued in its implementation. Teachers’ lack of knowledge and the absence of a robust training program on pedagogy for MTE led to failed implementation in many schools (ibid.).
27An inherent limitation also deemed a policy gap is the recognition of only 19 official MT languages by the DepEd despite more than a hundred recognized local languages in the country. Related to this is the issue of linguistic diversity at the classroom level, where teaching in only one MT, even though learners have different native languages, continues to present challenges. The mismatch between the mandated MT and MOI at the regional or national level has also resulted in mismatches at the field level in communities. For instance, the use of Ilokano as the designated MOI in Baguio City, Benguet province, was observed even though Tagalog or Filipino was the predominant MT in this school (Monje et al. 2016: 32).
28The cultural bias against MTE, with stakeholders more inclined towards English language learning, is also an issue. The pragmatic view of English as a means of social mobility and employability is widely shared by Filipino families. Filipino parents increasingly call for English medium education, driven by the desire for better opportunities for their children (Agcaoili 2010; Symaco 2017; Adriano, Franco & Estrella 2021). Monje et al. (2019: 31) noted, for instance, a parent’s response: “Waray na nga sa loob ng bahay, Waray pa rin sa school” (“Waray [a local dialect] is spoken at home, why should Waray still be used in school”) or “Hindi naman Waray ang gagamitin during job interviews” (“No one uses Waray during job interviews”).
29The ASEAN integration has also prompted a greater sense of urgency and value in English language learning. To establish connectivity and mobility among Southeast Asian workers, the ASEAN Education Ministers emphasized the need for English language training as fundamental to creating a quality workforce. The goals of English language teaching then must satisfy the demands of globalization. Ironically, English language teachers in the Philippines lament the opposing directions in MTB-MLE and the demand for developing English language proficiency among multilingual learners (Madrunio, Martin & Plata 2016).
30For many years, the Philippines relished a relatively traditional edge in English proficiency, which is now slowly eroding given the inadequacies in schooling and community resources, particularly in the public sector (Madrunio, Martin & Plata 2016). Coupled with poverty, malnutrition, inadequate school resources, and large class sizes in many parts of the country, language teaching and learning have been difficult and ineffective. As language underlies competencies in mathematics and science, the country has expectedly not fared well in international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2022, Filipino 15-year-olds ranked at the bottom of the rankings regarding creative thinking skills, mathematics, reading literacy, and science (Philippine Star 2024). Attributing the dismal scores Filipinos earned in these assessments to the language policy, the Philippines enacted a law to rescind the MTB-MLE policy in 2024. Under the new law, “[t]he medium of instruction shall revert to Filipino and until otherwise provided by law, English” (Government of the Philippines 2024).
31This paper discussed the various challenges faced by the MTB- MLE policy in the Philippines, from the lack of resources, proper teacher training and professional development, instructional issues, among others, which have led to the rescinding of the policy in 2024. The controversy that surrounded the MTB- MLE policy calls for a more contextualized approach to the language-in-education policy in the country. Guided by recent research, language educators are proposing evidence-based pedagogies related to translanguaging to encourage diverse languages in the classroom. Cummins (2019: 21) refers to translanguaging as “crosslinguistic pedagogy, multilingual or bilingual teaching strategies and teaching through a multilingual lens”. Success has been documented in this approach for instance through its application in science education in multilingual third-grade classrooms (De los Reyes & Bagona 2022), and as a bridging strategy in developing metalinguistic awareness (Vogel & Garcia 2017 as cited in Perfecto 2022). It is also imperative that a more grassroots approach to teaching MLE be created, where classroom teachers and schools can determine best what program design and pedagogical approach will thrive in their context and better resource allocation is practiced. This bears consequence to an already cash-strapped educational system which may require more resources than already anticipated (Symaco & Dumanig 2022). Developments in language teaching point to plausible ways forward for the future of language-in-education policies in the country. At the heart of a balanced and effective language policy is the Filipino learner. If the end goal is to develop Filipinos who are multiliterate, multicultural and multilingual, then the barriers to addressing their language and learning needs must be overcome.