The BEP in the Philippines: Models, Benefits,

Challenges

Learning Competencies:
1. Explain the Bilingual Education models
2. Explain why did the Philippines implemented Bilingual Education
3. Point out the benefits, challenges and issues concerning the
implementation of Bilingual Education in the Philippines

Introduction:
In today’s world, “bilingualism is more the norm than the exception,” (Lessow-
Hurley, 2000). Governments around the world are now developing
bilingual/multilingual educational policies, not only as a response to their nations’
innate linguistic heterogeneity, but also as a means of coping with a world whose
borders are increasingly disappearing.

The Philippines is no different from the rest of the world: the average Filipino
speaks three to four languages. There are two official languages, English and
Filipino. Filipino, the basis of various local languages, is the language of the
streets, popular media and the masses. Inhabitants of Metro Manila, the nation’s
capital, are all exposed to these two languages the minute they are born. Yet,
when they enter school, English is introduced as the “global” language, as well as
the language of math, science and technology. The Philippines is in a linguistic
situation where English and Filipino are used predominantly for different
functions: English is used for formal and business communication needs, as well
as for most academic discourse. Thus, it becomes imperative to learn this
language, mostly at the expense of the other.

Activity 1. Fill-out the first two columns of the table below (Ready and Set).
You can go back to the last two columns after reading the texts to be given to
you.
Topics Ready Set Go Whoa
(What Do I (What Do I (What New (What
know?) Think I will Information questions Do
Learn?) Do I have?) I still have
about the
topic?)
 Dual language
model

Development of
BEP of the
Philippines (What
triggered its
formation?)
Benefits of
implementing
BEP

Challenges and
issues in
implementing
BEP

Bilingual Approaches to Language Learning

Bilingual Approaches to language learning describe the various bilingual models
found in different levels. In different parts of the world, the attainment of
proficiency in two or more languages is viewed as highly a desirable goal.
Sometimes the development of bilingual skills takes place outside the bounds of
formal education, impelled by individual factors in socio-cultural context. The
emphasis of bilingual education is understanding how two or more languages are
used within an educational system to promote the goal of proficiency in both
languages.
The Bilingual Education Program of the Philippines (BEP), where English is the
medium of instruction in Science and Mathematics and Pilipino or Filipino, the
national language, in all other subjects, has been recognized as one of the earliest
comprehensive bilingual education experiments in the world. The BEP was
institutionalized in 1974 and since then, it has been the broad framework of the
educational system in the country. Prior to 1974, English had been practically the
sole medium of instruction in the Philippines since 1901 when the public
education system was put in place by the Americans.
From then on, the Dual Language Bilingual Education model, where academic
programs are taught in two languages, is being used. Philippine schools
specifically use two forms of dual language bilingual education. Through the
years, the Filipino and English languages were used, and the Mother Tongue as
an auxiliary language for instruction.
a. Transitional program- this dual language bilingual education provides
students with some level of instruction in their primary or native language
for a certain period of time—generally one to three years—before students
transition into English-only instructional programs in content areas. They
are known as “one-way” programs because they only serve one group—
non-native English speakers.
Before the emergence of the Mother Tongue Instruction in the Philippines,
the native language referred to in this program is the Filipino language-our
National Language. However at present, with the implementation of the
Mother Tongue-Based Multi Lingual Education (MTB-MLE) some public
schools in the Philippines use the children’s vernacular language as the
primary medium of instruction in Kinder to grade three levels before using
both Filipino and English in grades four to grade six levels.

b. Maintenance program. In this program, the students are provided with

concurrent instruction in English and their primary language throughout
their elementary-school years—typically pre-kindergarten through sixth
grade—with the goal of developing English fluency and academic literacy
in both languages. This program is continued during secondary and
tertiary levels.
Both transitional and maintenance programs include instructional strategies
associated with English as a second language

In a report, `Tupas and Lorente (2014) summarized the development and

implementation of the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) in the Philippines
Development of BEP in the Philippines
In the postcolonial era, this ‘American legacy’ of English shaped the landscape in
which national language and bilingual education policies were debated on and
carried out. Whatever the form and substance of language debates at any given
point, the politics of language in the Philippines always featured the tension
between English on the one hand and the vernacular languages on the other.
English represented colonial oppression and ideological superiority, as well
as democracy and modernity. The vernacular languages represented
barbarism, tribalism and anti- Americanism, as well as freedom and social
justice.
The Filipino’s urge for freedom from this “American legacy” led them to choose
a single language that will represent them. Among the competing Philippine
languages, Tagalog became the basis of the national language for many possible
reasons, including the fact that it was the language spoken by most of the national
leaders including then Philippine President Manuel Quezon. Also, the seat of
political government was (and still is) in Manila in Central Luzon, the region in
which the majority of people spoke Tagalog as a mother tongue. But because of
this choice as the national language, the politics of language took on an
ethnolinguistic dimension (Gonzalez 1991). At the time, Bisaya, the language
spoken in Central Visayas and in many parts of Mindanao, was numerically
greater than Tagalog (Smolicz & Nical 1997), leading to accusations of Tagalog
imperialism or internal colonization.

It was precisely because of the political sensitivity about Tagalog as the national
language that it was renamed Pilipino in 1959 through a memorandum from the
Department of Education.

During the debates in the national assembly for the purpose of rewriting the
Philippine Constitution in 1973, ethnolinguistic rivalries flared up again when the
national language issue was deliberated (Gonzalez 1980). Because of different
levels of compromise among political leaders in the national assembly, Pilipino
ceased to be the national language of the country. Instead, Section 3.2 of Article
XV of the 1973 Philippine constitution stated that:

The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal
adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.

Tagalog, Pilipino or Filipino, its inclusion as a medium of instruction is

history for the Philippines.

This was, in fact, the first time in the history of 20th century Philippine
education that the dominance of English in the schools was seriously
challenged by another language. Except for vernacular instruction in Grades 1
and 2, between 1957 and 1974, English was the sole medium of instruction in
school from the time it was introduced in 1901 until the promulgation of bilingual
education in 1974.

Two key points, therefore, were instrumental to the emergence of bilingual

education in the Philippines:

First was the question about the sole dominance of English as a colonial language
in Philippine schools. A vernacular language, in the form of a national language,
would arguably have better chances than English of eliminating inequalities in
Philippine education perpetuated by and through the sole use of English as
medium of instruction.
The second key point that led to the emergence of bilingual education in the
country was the question about Pilipino as the national language itself. Because of
ethnolinguistic rivalries, Pilipino ceased to be the national language in the
Philippine constitution but it resurfaced as a medium of instruction alongside
English.

In 1987, the constitution was again rewritten during the administration of

President Corazon Aquino after the ousting of Ferdinand E. Marcos during the
1986 People Power revolt. Section 6, Article 16 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution stipulated in definitive terms that ‘The national language of the
Philippines is Filipino’. Thus, while Filipino was still a linguistic fiction in 1973
(Gonzalez 1980), it became a sociolinguistic reality in 1987. Filipino, unlike
Tagalog or Pilipino, signalled the ‘non-exclusivist and multilingual character’ of
the national language (Nolasco 2010, p. 171). This was followed by Department
of Education Order No. 52 which spelled out further the political framework of
the BEP. This time Filipino, not Pilipino, was to be a medium of instruction
alongside English, even if ‘Tagalog’, ‘Pilipino’ and ‘Filipino’ were essentially the
same linguistically (Nolasco 2010).

The contributions of Bilingual Education to Philippine society

Viewed through the lens of a decolonizing agenda, bilingual education in the

country undoubtedly ruptured the dominance of English in Philippine education.
Although it has not really displaced English as a symbol of power and prestige
(Tupas 2008), it has opened up resistance to neocolonial dominance in Philippine
education through the use of a local language as a language of learning (Enriquez
1989).

‘Tagalog’ (in 1937), ‘Pilipino’ (in 1973) or ‘Filipino’ (in 1987) would serve as the
language of nationalism (or anti-colonialism) which would arrest the mis-
education of the Filipino people through English (Constantino 1970; see also
Enriquez 1989; Almario 1999). In other words, bilingual education would
constitute part of what may be called ‘a pedagogy of liberation’ (Alexander
2009, p. 199). For example, the importance of a national language contributed to
what many scholars have called the indigenization of knowledge construction in
the country. The indigenous national language has served as a vehicle for the
recuperation of local knowledges and ways of thinking and doing which have
been marginalized by Western - based research theories and methodologies, for
example in the social sciences. Through the national language, an intellectual
tradition called Pantayong Pananaw has emerged in the social sciences, roughly a
perspective of history and society that takes on a ‘from-us-for-us’ point of view
where research and other forms of intellectual scrutiny centred on problems and
solutions that are relevant to the lives of Filipinos (Bautista & Pe-Pua 1991).

Sociolinguistically, Tagalog-based Filipino through bilingual education

increasingly became widespread across the archipelago, and took root in the lives
of many Filipinos especially through the media and popular culture. The same
national language has served as lingua franca among Filipino workers scattered
all over the world. Although still resisted along ethnolinguistic lines, research has
shown that majority of Filipinos have come to accept the Filipino language as the
country’s national language (Nical, Smolicz & Secombe 2003).

Bilingual education, thus, has cemented the role of Filipino as the country’s main
interethnic lingua franca elevating it to a national symbol of unity through which
the Filipino people’s national identity and aspirations could allegedly be
expressed (Sibayan,1991).

Problems and Criticisms of Bilingual Education

In its simplest form bilingual education is the use of two languages. In a more
sophisticated context, bilingual education is the use of the native language for
instructional purposes while English is being learned as a second language. While
the implementation of the Bilingual education is a big step, unfortunately, as a
program commonly externally imposed, it has not received general acceptance by
the education community. Bilingual programs are often reluctantly implemented,
inadequately staffed, limited in resources and poorly administered. The program
has been implemented decades ago, but its status is still unresolved.

It is a fact that global and local socioeconomic and political formations continued
to perpetuate the symbolic dominance of English in the country. In the 1970s and
the 1980s during which bilingual education was institutionalized and took root,
the whole Philippine society under the Marcos dictatorship was increasingly being
reconfigured toward an export-driven liberalized economy under the aegis of the
World Bank and other global institutions (Tupas 2008a).

Among many things, this meant deploying the infrastructures of bilingual

education to train young Filipino bodies to become export-ready labor
commodities to help keep the fledging economy adrift. A key feature of the
politics of development aid during this period was the well-documented collusion
between the dictatorship and the US-led global economic institutions (Bello et al.
1982). One example of this was the infusion of funds into the Philippines in
exchange for control over the content and management of education through
which the so-called benefits of labor export, the gains of dictatorship, and the
triumph of globalization could be heralded as “truths” (Constantino 1999). During
this period, school texts were “supervised and financed by the World Bank”
(Mulder 1990, p. 85), thus the content of bilingual education was essentially
ideologically suspect, if not flawed.

In serving the economy, bilingual education contributed hugely to the tiering of

English linguistic proficiencies which would then correlate with the kinds of jobs
and economic opportunities available to different socioeconomic classes in
Philippine society (Tupas 2008a; Sibayan and Gonzalez 1996). The 1970s saw the
emergence of the discourse of English as a necessary social and economic good in
the making of what Lorente (2012) now calls the “workers of the world.” On the
contrary, Constantino (1982) claims that English is a social wedge between the
small Filipino elite and the great majority of Filipinos masses

True, as Hau and Tinio (2003) contend, that “Filipino appears to stand a better
chance” (p. 347) to address the “compelling need in the Philippines to create
linguistic public spaces where different classes and groups can meet on a common
linguistic ground” (ibid.). Nevertheless, it was hijacked by the collusive agenda of
the State and global economic institutions and their guardians.

Until today, there still exist a debate on the practicality of using the Filipino and
the vernacular in some subjects or as separate subjects in the curriculum,
considering that they may not be useful in technical courses, and that, they may be
learned in our own homes.

The first and most comprehensive evaluation of the accomplishments of bilingual

education in the country (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988) found that more than
Medium of Instruction (MOI), the most significant contributor to success in
learning in school in the country is the socioeconomic composition of the student
population which correlates with quality of teachers, salary, and proximity to an
urban environment. In other words, bilingual education failed to overturn
“opportunities for advancement which seem to be largely restricted to those who
already enjoy social and economic advantages in Philippine society” (Bernardo
2004, p. 26).

Another criticism on the BEP is the seemingly impossible separation of English

and Filipino in one course or subject. One very common phenomenon in a
bilingual class is the use of code-switching specially when teaching a content-area
subject. Code-switching is the practice of alternating between two or more languages
or varieties of language in conversation.

Traditional grammarians call this “poor English”. For them, not being able to
speak eloquent English is an evidence of incompetency and lack of language
facility. On the other hand, research like that of Martin (2006) proved that code-
switching does not hinder students to achieve fluency in English nor did it hinder
the learning experience of Science. She claimed from her data that code –
switching is not only useful in the learning experience of the students, but also in
teaching. Bernardo (2005) stresses that multilingualism is not a problem in
teaching and learning. He emphasizes that it must actually be used as a resource
to help increase students’ achievement.

Unacceptable though, it is very evident that code - switching has penetrated the
premises of the schools, and even inside the classrooms. Students and teachers
alike are heard code -switching in meetings and other gatherings, and even in
classroom discussions. Whether we like it or not, we find comfort in code -
switching as we use it in expressing our ideas. In our curriculum where most of
the subjects are taught in English, sometimes we cannot help but to code - switch
to facilitate understanding and allow more rooms for exchanging of ideas (Dela
Cruz, 2018)

Code-switching, though typical in our society, does not seem to be aligned with
the BEP of the Philippines, thus, remains a controversy.

Activity 1. After reading the texts given to you, you are now to fill-out the last
two columns of the table below (Go and Whoa).
Topics Ready Set Go Whoa
(What Do I (What Do I (What New (What
know?) Think I will Information questions Do
Learn?) Do I have?) I still have
about the
topic?)
Dual language
model

Development of
BEP of the
Philippines

Benefits of
implementing
BEP

Challenges in
implementing
BEP

Activity 1. Below are some key points, scenarios, and issues which are
presented in the reading materials on the implementation of the BEP in the
Philippines. React and reflect on them by indicating how do you feel and
what do you think about them. You can use real-life experiences, your
readings, and results of researches to backup how you feel and what you
think. Choose just three of the issues presented for your reaction.
Issues How do you feel What do you think
about the Issue? about the Issue?
1. English represented
colonial oppression and
ideological superiority as
well as democracy and
modernity
2. Vernacular languages
represented barbarism,
tribalism and anti-
Americanism
3. Tagalog became the basis
of national language for
many possible reasons
including the fact that it was
the language spoken by
most of the national leaders
including the then Pre.
Manuel L. Quezon
4. Tagalog, Filipino or
Pilipino, it was the first
time in the history of 20th
Century Philippine
Education that dominance
of English s seriously
challenged by another
language
5. Although bilingual
education has not displaced
English as a symbol of
power and prestige, It has
opened -up resistance to
neo-colonial dominance in
Philippine Education
through the use of the local
language as a language of
learning.
6. The indigenous national
language has served as
vehicle for the recuperation
of local knowledge and
ways of and thinking and
doing which have been
 marginalized by western
research theories
7. Bilingual Education has
cemented the role of
Filipino as country’s main
lingua franca elevating it to
a national symbol of unity
and national identity
8. Because English is
continuously perpetuated as
a symbol of dominance,
bilingual education is a
hindrance to learning
English
9. The content of bilingual
education is flawed as the
idea of globalization
triumphs and as our
educational system trains
young Filipinos to become
export- ready labor
commodity.
10. Bilingual Education failed
to overturn opportunities for
advancement and it seems
that it is restricted to those
students with social and
economic advantage.

Activity 1. Go back to the provisions, policies and goals of the Bilingual

Education of the Philippines. As a Filipino learner, which one of these
provisions, goals and policies do you agree the most? Which one don’t you
agree the most too? Use the table for your answers.
Provision, goal, policy which I…
Agree Do not Agree

Reasons
Activity 2. One of the perceived reasons why Bilingual Education has not
received general acceptance in education community is because of lack of
training and orientation of teachers on the policies and on the
implementation of the program. If you were a curriculum designer, would
you like to include Bilingual Education in the Philippines as a separate
Professional Education subject to all students taking up education course,
instead of only English majors studying it? Why or why not? Put your
answers on the table below:

Bilingual Education in the Philippines Bilingual Education in the Philippines

must be a separate professional must be not be a separate professional
Education subject among all education Education subject among all education
students students. Only English majors should
study it.
1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.
Congratulations! You have tackled the third module in this subject. Give yourself
a thumbs-up for a job-well done! This time, reflect on your learnings in this
module. Put your reflections on the boxes following the guide statements:

I am certain that I I think there is still a I could apply what I

learned about… need to learn more learned by…
about…

References:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307551787_Bilingual_and_Mot
her_Tongue-
Based_Multilingual_Education_in_the_Philippines/link/5c3715d0a6fdccd
6b5a0a216/
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305002463_A_'New'_Politics_o
f_Language_in_the_Philippines_Bilingual_Education_and_the_New_Chal
lenge_of_the_Mother_Tongues
3. https://www.u-keiai.ac.jp/issn/menu/ronbun/no19/19-175_yanagi.pdf
4. https://www.seameo.org/_ld2008/doucments/Presentation_document/Alm
ario_Villenueva_DualLanguage.pdf
5. https://www.seameo.org/_ld2008/doucments/Presentation_document/Alm
ario_Villenueva_DualLanguage.pdf
6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-
acquisition/article/evaluating-bilingual-education-in-the-philippines-
19741985-andrew-gonzalez-and-bonifacio-p-sibayan-eds-manila-
linguistics-society-of-the-philippines-1988-pp-
iv175/07BD2806280C66AD90D041E54A3972D2