UNDERLYING
THEORIES AND
ASSUMPTIONS
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
(MTBMLE) is aligned with the goals of Education
for All (EFA), which calls for sustainable and
integrative education models and policies.
MTBMLE was institutionalized in the Philippines
through Republic Act 10533 after years of research,
theory building, and advocacy.
A survey of research reports on the use of language
in education revealed that using the learner’s
mother tongue facilitates literacy, learning of
academic content, acquisition of a second language
(enabling learners to be bilingual) and overall
academic achievement.
In African countries, the use of the mother tongue
has positive implication for social development as
more girls are able to enter school, repeat classes
less frequently, and stay longer in school (Benson
2010). A local study lends credence to this as it
finds that accessibility to the medium of instruction
by the learners contributes to minimization of a
phenomenon called school leaving (Nava 2009).
Malone believes that a strong MTBMLE
program relies on research, including baseline
data and analysis of challenges. Bautista,
Bernardo, and Ocampo (2010) found that past
DepEd reforms failed because they ignored
research findings.
Stakeholder awareness and support are crucial for
MTBMLE success. Informed communities are more
likely to support the program.
Effective implementation also depends on involving
capable and committed policy advocates.
Orthography development should be community-led,
not expert-driven. When communities are excluded, it
can lead to protest and loss of ownership.
Participatory governance is important in making
programs like MTBMLE inclusive and effective.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) play a big role in
helping implement MTBMLE and ensure government
accountability.
Training and awareness encourage community
involvement and strong local leadership in education.
Collaborative governance, refers to a process where public
policy decisions and management involve people from
various sectors—government, private, and civic—working
together to achieve public goals that couldn’t be achieved
alone. According to Ansell and Gash, this collaboration must
meet six key criteria:
1) the forum is initiated by public agencies or institutions,
(2) participants in the public forum include non-state
actors, (3) participants engage directly in decision making
and are not merely consulted by public agencies, (4) the
forum is formally organized and meets collectively, (5) the
forum aims to make decision by consensus, and (6) the
focus of collaboration is on public policy or public
management (Ansell and Gash 2008).
“It is in this light that civil society organizations
and other stakeholders maximize their participation
in the policy making processes where allowed to
guarantee that the outcome reflects the negotiated
form and substance of a given policy. Needless to
underscore, social mobilization and awareness play
an important role in maximizing such
participation.”
THANK
YOU
ISSUES
&
CHALLENGES
A. Entanglement of MTBMLE in the ‘Language War’
MTBMLE advocates clashed with a dominant one-
language or centralist ideology, which often disguises
Tagalog as Filipino, marginalizing other regional
languages.
This centralist view controls not just academia but also
mainstream media, thereby shaping public perception
and suppressing multicultural, multilingual narratives.
MTBMLE essentially was fighting war on three fronts:
Bilingual Education Advocates: These promote only Filipino
and English, treating local languages as transitional or
inferior, not as legitimate languages of learning.
Pro-English Policymakers: Influential figures like Rep.
Eduardo Gullas and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo pushed for
English-only policies in education, even filing bills to
institutionalize this stance.
Some Filipino-Only Nationalists: Even within nationalist
groups, there was resistance to MTBMLE. Prominent
intellectuals and artists viewed Filipino as the sole
national language and resisted multilingual policy as
divisive or unnecessary.
B. Lack of Materials and Funding Inaccessibility
The shift from the Revised Basic Education Curriculum
(RBEC) to the K-12 curriculum was not fully anticipated,
leading to a lack of K-12-compliant learning materials.
This gap directly affects the quality and consistency of
MTBMLE implementation across schools.
The Learning Resources Management and Development
System (LRMDS) was introduced to support resource
delivery in a “paperless” or digital format.
C. Gaps in Policy and Practice
Although RA 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013) includes funding, curriculum, learning material
development, and transition provisions, these are not
effectively implemented on the ground.
There's a theoretical support for MTBMLE in law, but in
practice, systemic hurdles undermine this support.
C. Gaps in Policy and Practice
MTBMLE requires investment in teacher training,
contextualization, and material development.
A regional coordinator from Region XII reveals that
MTBMLE activities are financed through IPED (Indigenous
Peoples Education) funds—not the designated MTBMLE
fund, showing misalignment in budget usage.
C. Gaps in Policy and Practice
Section 4 of RA 10533 requires a transition program for
Grades 4 to 6 as learners shift from the mother tongue to
other languages.
However, DepEd has not implemented this transition plan
an oversight with serious implications for continuity and
comprehension in learning.
D. Policy Flaw
1. Disjointed RA and IRR
The gap between RA 10533 and its IRR weakens MTBMLE
implementation, as the IRR contradicts and waters down
key provisions of the law, especially on local control and
mother tongue use.
E. Ambiguous Stakeholder Synergies and Relationships
of Institutions Involved
The lack of clear roles and coordination among
institutions involved in MTBMLE leads to fragmented
efforts, highlighting the need for well-defined
stakeholder relationships and a harmonized system to
ensure efficient, sustainable implementation.
THANK
YOU
