MARIBEL LOPEZ

BSE – II/ IRREGULAR

ENGLISH MAJOR
Language Program and Policies in Multilingual Societies
Learning Activities:
What languages When do we start How long should Who are qualified to
should be used in teaching these these languages be teach? Who should
school? languages to taught? How many learn these
children? years? How many languages? How will
hours? it be taught?
I think it is better to MT should teach in These languages The teachers who are
use multilingual early grades while should be taught in six qualified to teach are
languages. As we all English & Filipino years. those teachers able to
know that that MTB- language should teach understand, speak and
MLE programs was in their middle and teach in a child’s
promote to increase upper primary grade. mother tongue. It
student achievement should be taught in
emphasizing on scaffolding approach.
cognitive The children should
development in a receive proper
child’s first language guidance to adults,
and student monitoring child’s
accomplishment progress and learning
using it as a outcomes. Before
foundation for shifting to Filipino
learning Filipino and and English, there
English in the future. should be a need a
Furthermore, how it is culturally appropriate
relevant to the programs as they
learners with certain make transition in the
cultures and medium of
geographical instruction.
locations. Yes, it may
have negative factors
such as children may
not acquire their
mother tongue for
some reasons that
they didn’t utilize it in
their home. However,
it provides a
 reasonable
framework for
preparing future
generations to be
more adaptable and
even productive
participants in a
globalized and
diverse environment.

IV. Based on your personal observations and readings, reflect on the questions shown below. Write
a 500 to 700-word reflective essay about your observations and realizations.
Parents feel frustrated the paradigm shift in language policy in the Philippines, some refuse to
enroll their children in school, children are unable to engage successfully in learning tasks as well
as early experiences of school failure, teachers feel overwhelmed by the children’s unwillingness
to participate and some are also struggling in facilitating the mother-tongue based language
because some are lack of training and are also not fluent in this language. Perhaps, some children
do succeed as a result of a language transition program that assists them in learning the target
language. However, there is a risk that children will not become linguistically competent members
of their families and communities, and that they may lose their ability to connect with their cultural
heritage.
With the rise of globalization and internationalization on education services, the goal of
producing manpower that is equipped to meet the demands of knowledge-based economy has
realigned government policies worldwide to put education at the forefront of its development
plans. From the rise of English as the language to globalized society calls to a more inclusive and
locally focused mother-tongue based multilingual education (MTB-MLE). MTB-MLE students
begin by learning to read and write their mother tongue. They learn to understand, speak, read and
write the official school language and the additional languages guided by the curriculum with the
help of their MT. In succeeding grades, they use both their MT and the official language for
learning. Hence, it will fall to promotive policies that strengthen the use of particular language(s)
by constitutional, administrative and legal guarantees; devote and/or guarantee resources (money,
personnel, space) for a language; specifying and reserving the domains of use for a language in
school, courts or administration. It is a clear indicator that language policy in both public and
private school strengthen by guidelines and systems. It is carried out based from these guidelines,
rules and regulations on how to utilized it inside the classroom.
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education remain challenged by several variables such as
such as low levels of teacher professionalism; incorrect use of classroom curricula; lack of
adequate instructional resources; competent teachers to teach mother tongue; lack of incentives for
teachers; low status of the minority language, which points out the unwritten or what would be
described as the local languages’ limited geographical significance, inadequacy of vocabulary and
writing system, and self-denial speakers which shows the instability of policies. It is not properly
observed, understood and interpreted but rather implemented through these declared and official
documents coming from government. The Language Education Policies are expressed openly in
official documents like curricula or mission statements. However, Language Education Policy
(LEP) are drawn implicitly from a number of de facto procedures rather than being stated openly.
Because the LEP is hidden from public view, it is more difficult to detect. As such, the LEP must
be generated from actual language practices by studying textbooks, teaching methods, and, most
importantly, testing systems.
LEP is regarded as a powerful instrument because it has the ability to establish and impose
language behavior in a system that requires all students to participate. Thus, LEP cannot stand
alone because it is linked to political, social and economic dimensions. Decisions that are made
regarding LEP is driven by central authorities in order to exercise influence. The role of central
authorities in relation to LEP is to recognize that they introduce, establish, and frequently impose
LEP as a means of establishing order, managing, and controlling the nation's linguistic repertory.
Educational institutions, on the other hand, function as the vehicles through which this order is
established. In other words, because language policy is not neutral, but rather is entwined with a
variety of political, ideological, social, and economic goals, LEP functions as vehicles for
propagating and sustaining these agendas.
I. Activate

Spanish American Japanese Commonwealth Present (K to

Occupation Occupation Occupation 12)
During Spanish The transition The In accordance MTB MLE,
occupation, from Spanish Commander- with the 1935 which was
language to English in-Chief of the constitution's developed in
policies were occurred Japanese demand for the 2012, was
devised by the during the forces invaded creation of a used in the K-
government in American the Philippines national 12 program
the country and Occupation. in 1942 language to to help
then English Despite the combat the students
communicated became the following cultural improve their
to the colony official proclamation, influence of the language
through royal language of English United States on proficiency.
decrees. The the remained the the Filipinos. The mother
colonial government. official President tongue, often
government’s Hence, language of Quezon urged known as the
linguistic English the the restoration first
policies should competency government, of native culture language,
be carried out was required business, and as well as ideal refers to the
in accordance for the education. Filipino values languages or
with the advancement While English (code of ethics), dialects that a
decrees. Friars in civil service and Tagalog an organized child learns
were also careers. were still attempt to first in their
powerful since Despite the taught in develop a early grades
they were the order of schools, common while
only Spaniards President Japanese national Filipino &
permitted to McKinley in became a language began. English will
dwell in teaching local mandatory The original be taught as
communities languages in foreign plan was to subject areas.
where they had schools, he language until establish a new From grades
direct contact then changed World War II language based 4-6, lead to
with and his mind and ended. on numerous mother
oversaw determined Following the Philippine tongue
indigenous. All that English Philippines’ languages, but transition
government should be independence this proved to be program in
initiatives taught instead in 1946, a challenging which
affecting in order to English task. Instead, English and
natives should teach about reclaimed its because of its Filipino are
be carried out democracy place as the importance in introduced as
by friars and no and American country’s the capital, media of
policies could system. This primary Manila, Tagalog instruction
have been necessity language of was designated while in
implemented prompted this instruction and as the national Junior High
without the change to an Tagalog as a language. School and
agreement and English separate Despite the fact Senior High
participation of monolingual subject taught that Tagalog School,
the friars. system. In in the was only spoken English and
Aside from schools, there classroom. by around 20% Filipino will
them, are a large of the become the
Filipino’s number of population, this primary
views foreign persisted. languages of
regarding teachers. Hence, an instruction.
languages Beginning in executive order
played a 1990, all was issued in
significant Philippine 1940 ordering
role. The schools used Tagalog to be
current English as a taught as a topic
sociolinguistic medium of in all schools,
status is mostly instruction in regardless of
determined by the classroom native language.
their and the use of However,
willingness to Philippine English
embrace languages was continued to be
Spanish. forbidden. an official
language of the
Philippines and
remained as the
primary
language of
instruction
 III. What were the similarities and differences between and among our language
policies? What do you think prompted these changes?
The similarities between and among our language policies are all the important
decision of language policy mainly concerns to the choice of medium of instruction
since it defines which language(s) will be learned, for how long, and so on. There have
been significant advancements in the fields of language policy and language planning
studies since the 1950s. It all started with a somewhat technical approach to handling
language planning in the focus on building corpus and status of official standard
language to be taught in schools. The goals of a language education policy, whether
monolingual, bilingual or multilingual are a critical factor in its creation, and the
policy’s outcomes can be measured in terms of language competence. The only
difference is that MT entails the legal rights of language speakers to receive education
in their home language for better achievement while bilingual education into language
policy can be viewed as a feasible approach for child’s language proficiency in
acquiring additional language for wider communication. As the history shown,
language policy in the Philippines have shifted over time as a result of political,
economic, and cultural concerns at the national and community levels. The MTB-MLE
are examine by way of top-down policy from a bottom-up perspective for a larger
framework.

Estimated number of languages spoken in Southeast Asia based on the data from ethnologue.
 1. Which among the countries is considered as linguistically diverse?

Based on the data of ethnologue, the most linguistically diverse country is Indonesia with
total spoken languages of 722, following by our country with a total of 186 number of spoken
languages.

2. What do you think are the challenges faced by these countries in terms of?

a. Choosing an official language for instruction

The challenge is the country being linguistically diverse. In the reason that countries were
linguistically diverse it is hard to establish an official language for instruction. The language
of one is not the language of all.

b. Language policy implementation

Language policy is multifaceted and it is implemented in a variety of ways, including an

instrumental, pedagogic dimension and complex constellations of interacting components and
more profoundly, an ideological, political one. Hence, the challenge is in social networks,
relationships among stakeholders can either provide or destroy supportive policy environment.

c. Preservation and protection of non-dominant local languages or mother tongue

The challenge is that some children doesn’t learn their mother tongue in their immediate
community because some parents doesn’t utilize their mother tongue, as such, instead it will serve
as their first language but rather this became their second language. The conflict also arises when
many learners are taught in languages that are not spoken or utilized in their home, then instead of
learning effectively it becomes ineffective. In conclusion, the preservation or protection of non-
dominant local languages or mother tongue are challenged and dying because of not utilizing it.

d. Advancing multilingual education

The delivery of instruction became a challenge in the advancement of multilingual education

because there is a struggle on how multilingual education is appropriate for particular settings and
time and how it will be sufficient for the particular goal or task of any scope set for particular
learners, users, teachers, educational planners, and policy makers. Given that multilingual
education can be overwhelming for both migrant learners and teachers. The importance of literacy
and language instruction in the delivery of quality education cannot be overstated.
 e. Effects of multilingualism to national identity and unity

Sometimes because these countries were multilingualism, the challenge is the lack of unifying
language and symbol of collective identity. Due to multilingualism we can see many flows of
population in cultural forms and identities. We observe how a linguistically diverse society and
the growing complexity of languages have raised the barriers to citizenship participation under
conditions that erode the exclusive hold of the national state.
UNIT IV

1. What are the major goals of language policy?

Many governments have language policies that encourage or prohibit the use of a specific
language or several languages. Many countries currently have policies in place to safeguard and
promote regional and ethnic languages whose viability is challenged, as opposed to using language
policies to promote one official language at the detriment of others. Language policy makers are
concerned about the preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in today’s modern world.
Hence, the major goals of language policy are the prescription of usage conventions in order to
conserve language’s linguistic purity and defend it against perceived internal language divergence.
2. How would you describe the relationship between language policy and LEP?
Policy makers can profit greatly from LEP to strengthen language policy by using it to
manage the study of world languages from a strategic standpoint. The comparison of national
language education policies, education management systems, teaching methods, and language
education standards might motivate governments to adapt to the 21st century’s expanding
population diversity and new mobility needs. The ability to reflect on language in education policy
can aid institutional learning and reforms by providing the theoretical foundation and resources
needed.
3. Who makes the language policy?
Language policy is what a government does to determine how languages are us, developed
language skills necessary to sustain national priorities, or establish the rights of individuals or
groups to use and maintain languages, either officially by legislation, court rulings, or policy.
4. Do you consider a non-official language as a language policy?
Yes, because language policy may classify as overt or covert policies. And when we say covert
policies, it makes no mention of any language in any legal document, administrative code or etc.
It can be implicit, unstated, common-law, de facto, traditional customary, grassroots but guarantees
linguistic rights inferred from other policies. Meaning to say that these non-official languages is
still considered as a language policy
 5. Give at least one issue or challenges of LEP.

One of the issue or challenges of LEP is the challenges which hinder the smooth implementation
of language policy in MTB-MLE program in the Philippines such as lack of literate or trained
teachers who can facilitate this new reform in curricula of Philippine educational system.
Otherwise, children don’t learn their mother tongue at home. As a result, rather than serving as
their first language, it now functions as their secondary language.
II.Analyze
Answer the following questions and prepare for a class discussion.
1. Using the case of Israel, what do you think are the advantages and dis advantages
of having a formal and official language -in-education policy.
As we can observe Israel is a linguistically diverse country consisted of Jewish, Arabs, and
immigrants from Russia and Ethiopia to name a few. Now the advantages of having a formal and
official language are for the country to have a specific language for unified communication. This
will enable them to set a certain language in one domain to another. Of course, when they have a
clear policy for a variety of communication the public can understand and use in specific situation.
There would be a clarity of purpose on what, when and how languages will be use. Now, the
disadvantages of this are, given that Israel was a linguistically diverse country and some
community or minority groups might struggle on the set language policies, especially if that policy
was chosen by majority of people. If that’s the case this minority groups to cope in the existing
language policy.

2. How are nondominant languages in Israel valued based on LEP?

In Israel, non-dominant languages acknowledge and claim to adopt a multilingual principle stating
that different languages are utilized for different purposes. They valued and cultivate their mother
tongue through special classes. The national curriculum does not mention the age and immigrants’
native languages are taught for duration or content of their lives.
3. What are your thoughts about the “one language policy” mindset? How does it affect
multilingual education?
Since the goal of “one language, one nation” is to bring everyone closer to a speech community.
It also belies the reality that there are other factors to consider such as languages that have a
long history and have made a significant contribution to our culture. The “one language, one
nation” approach of language policy disregards this component and tends to deny its ignorance
of such a vital role in society. Now, this will affect multilingual education, if there will be a
language loss, as such, the preservation of multilingual education will challenge and those who
were given an opportunity to utilized and preserve their language are no longer dominant. This
also create huge commotion and multilingual education are eradicated.