You are on page 1of 3

Why English Should Be the Medium of Instruction

FEW can surpass the Japanese in nationalistic fervor. It is instructive to learn, therefore, that some
Japanese leaders and opinion-makers have been advocating that English be adopted as a second
official language. The Japanese are accepting the pragmatic view that Japan's future as a leading
industrial nation will critically hinge on its population mastering the English language.
A similar awakening is happening in other Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan and China.
Among especially the youth, there is a keen interest in learning how to speak English reasonably well.
As in Japan, the youth in these East Asian countries spend anywhere from six to ten years in
secondary schools and universities studying the English language. As some Korean students told me
when they recently visited the University of Asia and the Pacific, even ten years of studying English
do not lead to their speaking English well because of the emphasis on rote memorization and the
concentration on drilling arcane grammar rules. The following lament of a Japanese student should be
familiar to those of us who took 24 units of Spanish in the fifties and sixties but never managed to
speak Spanish: "We read and write English a lot in school, but we don't have a chance to speak and
listen to English.
Teaching English has become a billion-dollar industry in Japan. The same thing is happening in other
East Asian countries. The pressure is getting more intense as young professional people appreciate the
value of the Internet in advancing their professional status. There is a very high correlation between
the mastery of English and Internet usage.
The opportunity to practice speaking English is maximized in countries where the language is used as
the medium of instruction, such as in Singapore and the Philippines. In Hong Kong, the decision of
Beijing officials to remove English as a medium of instruction in most schools is already leading to
the deterioration of English among the common workers. It is increasingly possible to call an office in
Hong Kong and be answered by an employee who only speaks Cantonese or Mandarin. Some
expatriates in Hong Kong fear that the deterioration of English could seriously jeopardize Hong
Kong's role as the financial capital of Asia.
These developments around us should knock some sense into those who would like to remove English
as a medium of instruction in our schools. They may have an important point. Children of low-income
households find a great deal of difficulty learning the different subjects in their school's curricula
because they are faced to learn them in a foreign language, English. I do sympathize with the concern
that the children of lower-income households may be prejudiced by the insistence on using English as
a medium of instruction because of the possible slowdown in their intellectual development as they
are forced to learn in a foreign language.
The other side of the coin, however, is even more threatening to the poor. If we remove English as a
medium of instruction in our schools, it is a certainty that the lower-income students will never learn
to speak English well. The children of the well-to-do will find alternative means of education and of
being exposed to English in their daily lives (at home, with their peers, through television and video
programs, etc.) Then we shall worsen the inequity in economic opportunities because there is no
doubt that those who are fluent in English in this shrinking world of Internet and free trade will have
wider employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
The compromise I propose is to continue with the present policy of using Filipino (or the vernacular)
as the medium of instruction in the primary and even intermediate schools. Starting first year high
school and all throughout college, English should be the medium of instruction in all subjects, except
Filipino. The youth have all the chances to speak and listen to Filipino in their day-to-day lives:
conversation with members of their families and friends, going to movies in Filipino, watching
television programs in Filipino, etc. The vast majority of the youth, however, do not have enough
occasions in their normal lives to speak and listen to English. The classroom is the only place where
they can be obliged to speak nothing but English. That, as the Japanese and Koreans are realizing, is
the only way for the students to actually learn how to speak English.
One last observation on this issue. There are those who point out that such countries as Japan, Korea
and Taiwan have become economic powerhouses even if their populations have spoken only their
respective national languages. They didn't need English to reach heights of economic development.
Why can't we just speak Filipino and attain economic success without having to learn English?
The answer can be found in what happened during the last 40 years. When the tiger economies of East
Asia succeeded in lifting themselves by the bootstraps, national economies were not as globally
integrated and interrelated as they are now. Tariff barriers and other ways of protecting local
producers from foreign competition still proliferated. During the past 10 to 15 years, however, the
world has been moving towards more globally integrated markets (NAFTA, AFTA, APEC, WTO).
Local producers must integrate into international or at least regional markets that go beyond domestic
boundaries. Thus, even small entrepreneurs and farmers must use international channels of
communication in order to prosper. Whether we like it or not, English is the most useful language a
businessman in any part of the world employs to have access to markets, technology, capital, and
training from the outside world.
We cannot turn back the hands of time. Serious errors in economic policy in the past have saddled us
with more than 20 million of our fellow citizens living in dehumanizing poverty. We have to find jobs
for these marginalized Filipinos by giving them the widest options, including being integrated into the
global economy. Thus, we have to facilitate the learning of English for everyone, not only for the
high-income families. We can be fluent in Filipino, without sacrificing English. The only practical
way to preserve English is to continue making it the medium of instruction in high schools and
colleges.

The Medium of Instruction in Education

Medium of instruction is a language used in teaching. It may or may not be the official language of
the country or territory. Where the first language of students is different from the official language, it
may be used as the medium of instruction for part or all of schooling. Bilingual or multilingual
education may involve the use of more than one language of instruction.
UNESCO considers that “providing education in a child’s mother tongue is indeed a critical issue”. In
Philippines, the learner’s first language should be the primary medium of instruction at least until
grade three. In the secondary education, Filipino and English are primary medium of instruction. The
Thomasites is a group of about five hundred pioneer American teachers sent by the U.S. government
to the Philippines in August 1901.The Thomasites arrived in the Philippines on August 12, 1901 to
establish a new public school system, to teach basic education and to train Filipino teachers with
English as the medium of instruction. However, the Thomasites expanded and improved the public
school system, and switched to English as the medium of instruction.
Learning begins with teachers, and empowered teachers and school heads are at the heart of genuine
education reform. It is not enough that our teachers just go along for the ride in our drive toward
quality education. They must lead the way in preparing our children and young people for lifelong
learning. But what are the medium of instruction that teacher must use in the teaching process? There
is constant debate over which language should be use in educating Filipinos: English, Tagalog, or
local dialects. The use of English for teaching math and science as well as English language and
literature subjects has endured for many years; however, they said that Using English in public
schools is a violation of the Philippine constitution. It also deteriorates the education system in the
Philippines and puts the poorer students at a disadvantage. Requiring its use, schools ironically
determine the students’ abilities to learn the language. The use of English alienates students from their
cultural heritage, impairs their emotional security and self-worth, and results in inferiority complex
among lower-class children who are stigmatized for using the native tongue. Despite a number of
studies confirming that learning is faster using the native language, government officials are still
pushing for the adoption of English as a medium on instruction (MOI) in Philippine schools.
Well-known educators, writers and national artists signed a petition asking the Philippine Supreme
Court to block Executive Order No. 210, which requires the use of English as the medium of
instruction in Philippine public schools. According to the petitioners, the use of Filipino and other
regional languages to teach the students would help them learn better. However, If we remove English
as a medium of instruction in our schools, it is a certainty that the lower-income students will never
learn to speak English well. The children of the well-to-do will find alternative means of education
and of being exposed to English in their daily lives at home, with their peers, through television and
video programs, etc. Then we shall worsen the inequity in economic opportunities because there is no
doubt that those who are fluent in English in this shrinking world of Internet and free trade will have
wider employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. But When President Arroyo was asked about the
legality of her new medium of instruction policy, she said that “After all, the Constitution specifies
that the use of Filipino as language of instruction is subject to provisions of the law and as the
Congress may deem appropriate. Therefore, until Congress enacts a law mandating Filipino as the
language of instruction” she could give the order to make English the “primary medium of
instruction.” Former Undersecretary of Education Isagani R. Cruz has this to say about the debate: In
reality, however, despite the Constitution, the presidential order, and the Department orders, there is
only one language of instruction in practically all classrooms in the country. It is Taglish, a non-
language that is variously labeled as code-switching, pidgin, or a lingua franca, featuring a still-un
systematized mixture of Tagalog, English, and vernacular languages of various regions. However,
Gullas said that learning of the English language suffered a setback when the BEP was introduced in
1974. “The use of Filipino as a medium of instruction in the subjects mentioned earlier has limited the
exposure of the learner to English, and since exposure is basic to language learning, mastery of the
language is not attained. Studies in country after country bear this out. Teaching in an official school
language that is not the mother tongue is a major barrier in the child’s learning.
In the Philippines, the experiment was conducted in Kalinga, where teachers use Kalinga to teach
children from Grades 1 to 3 to read and write. It is also the medium of instruction for teaching other
subjects, including Filipino and English. Out of the 10 districts in the Kalinga division, the Lubuagan
district topped the 2006 national achievement test Grade 3 reading test for both English and Filipino,
with mean scores of 76.55% and 76.45 respectively, which indicates mastery. The Tinglayan district
came in a far second registered only 63.89% and 53.58%. The Gullas bill has very good intentions.
But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Learning to speak and write in English in this age of globalization is necessary especially if we would
like to be able to compete in the knowledge-based world. Such training can best be done in a
classroom but the medium of instruction is the problem in the Philippine education.

You might also like