See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229520296

McKinley's Questionable Bequest: Over 100 Years of English in Philippine

Education

Article  in  World Englishes · February 2004

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00332.x

CITATIONS READS

104 7,859

1 author:

Allan B. I. Bernardo
De La Salle University
180 PUBLICATIONS   2,866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social cognitive aspects of poverty, socioeconomic inequality, and socioeconomic mobility. View project

Polyculturalism: Dimensions, mechanisms, and intergroup consequences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Allan B. I. Bernardo on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

World Englishes, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 17±31, 2004. 0883±2919

McKinley's questionable bequest:

over 100 years of English in Philippine education

ALLAN B. I. BERNARDO*

ABSTRACT: The English language has enjoyed a privileged status in Philippine formal education since US
President McKinley declared it the medium of instruction of the Philippine public educational system in
1900. But the pre-eminence of English has been vigorously called to question since then. This paper traces
the changing status of English in Philippine education from the establishment of the American colonial
government to the current implementation of the Bilingual Education Policy. It then discusses five
dominant themes in the competing discourses regarding the role of English in Philippine education.
Finally, the emerging prospects for English in Philippine education are described.

INTRODUCTION1
The English language has enjoyed a privileged status in Philippine formal education for
more than a hundred years. In the Letter of Instruction to the Philippine Commission
issued on April 7, 1900, US President William McKinley declared that English be the
medium of instruction at all levels of the public educational system in the Philippines.
More than a century after, English is well entrenched and quite dominant in the Philippine
education system. But this pre-eminence of English has been vigorously challenged over
the years. In this paper, I attempt to describe the changing status of English as a medium of
instruction in Philippine formal education. I will do so by first providing a brief history of
language-related educational developments in the Philippines. I will then describe the
competing discourses that surround the use of English in Philippine education. Finally, I
will discuss the likely prospects for English in Philippine education, in the context of such
debates.

A BRIEF HISTORY
The history of the `language of instruction' issue in Philippine education might be said to
begin during the American colonial period from 1900 to 1941. Prior to this period, the
matter of education was either unsystematic or undocumented. Although there were
schools established during the Spanish colonial period from 1565 to 1898, the colonial
government did not establish a systematic program for education. Indeed, the generally
accepted policy was not to educate the Filipinos because the Spaniards feared that the
Filipinos would revolt against Spain if they knew too much (see, e.g., Bernabe, 1978). The
colonization of the country in the mid-sixteenth century also brought about the eradication
of whatever form of education (and documentation thereof ) existed in the Philippine
archipelago prior to the colonial period. Thus, we may argue that, for our purposes, the

* College of Education, De La Salle University-Manila, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004 Philippines. E-mail:
bernardoa@dlsu.edu.ph

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
18 Allan B. I. Bernardo

history of the language of instruction issue in Philippine education begins in 1900 with
McKinley's Letter of Instruction.

The English-only policy

Several considerations motivated the English-only language policy that was immediately
and systematically implemented throughout the country. According to Prator (1950: 15),
McKinley actually ordered the Philippine Commission to use the `language of the people'
in the public schools to be set up in the Philippines. But this original order gave way to the
official letter of instruction that seemed to acknowledge the difficulty in using the language
of the people (however defined) when there were no teaching materials in the native
languages. According to Martin (1999: 133±4), the American colonial government decided
to adopt the English-only policy for several reasons. First, the American teachers could
more effectively teach in English. Second, English was thought to be a language that could
unite the Filipinos from the different regions who spoke different languages and dialects.
Third, English was thought of `as the language that would provide the Filipinos access to
civilization . . . the life of reason and prudence' (Martin, 1999: 134). Martin continues,
`This, of course, assumed that a civilized citizenry was not prone to rebellion.' It was as if
the colonizer was lending its language to `civilize' the subjects of the colony, so that they
might participate in the society that was determined by the colonizer, in ways determined
by the colonizer.
The pedagogical considerations became secondary to the political and social agenda of
the colonial government. Thus, English was used as a medium of instruction with a
pedagogy that assumed English was the primary language of the students (Alberca, 1994;
Gonzalez, this issue; Sibayan, 1967). The curriculum was largely filled with literacy-
building courses such as reading, spelling, writing, composition, rhetoric, and literature
(Martin, 1999: 134). Both students and teachers were not allowed to utter a word in any
language other than English (Sibayan, 1967). The teaching materials contained only
Anglo-American content, which is still largely true in most English-related curricula
even to this day (Martin, 1999: 134).

Early criticisms of the English-only policy

The problems of educating a population of people using a foreign language became
evident soon after. Many American and Filipino critics wrote unequivocally about the
problems in using English as the medium of instruction. According to Salamanca (1968:
86), two American scholars studied the state of public education in the Philippines (in 1904
and 1913) and both found low levels of English language proficiency among the Filipino
students. Based on his own studies, Saleeby (1924) recommended that three regional
languages should be used together with English in elementary education. In 1931, the Vice
Governor General of the Philippine Islands, George C. Butte, declared that all instruction
in the elementary schools `should be given in one of the nine native languages which is
appropriate to the locality, as soon as the necessary textbooks can be provided and
qualified teachers obtained' (cited in Martin, 1999: 133). An official evaluation of the
Philippine education system conducted by the Monroe Survey Commission of 1925
actually found that `no other single difficulty has been so great as that of overcoming
the foreign language handicap' (Monroe, 1925: 127). The `foreign language handicap'
notwithstanding, the Monroe Survey Commission recommended the continuation of the

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 19

English-only policy reaffirming the original tenets that motivated this policy (Monroe,
1925: 24±7).

Experimenting with bilingual education

The first real threat to the ascendancy of English in Philippine education came in 1939,
when Jorge Bocobo became Secretary of Education. He issued an order to the effect that
English be continued as a medium of instruction but that primary school teachers be
allowed to use the local languages as a supplementary tool for instruction. According to
Sibayan (1978), this order effectively began bilingual education in the Philippines,
although the policy was never labeled as such. In 1940, the teaching of the national
language, Pilipino (based on Tagalog and renamed Filipino in 1986) was required for
senior high school students. During the Japanese occupation, the teaching of Pilipino was
encouraged. After World War II, Pilipino was a required subject in the primary and
secondary school curriculum, as well as in the teacher education and liberal arts college
programs.
Amidst all these developments, English remained the primary and dominant language of
instruction in Philippine schools. But in the 1940s and 1950s there were many experiments
undertaken involving the exclusive use of local languages as medium of instruction. One of
the most famous was the longitudinal experiment of Jose V. Aguilar in Iloilo from 1948 to
1954, using Hiligaynon as the medium of instruction in elementary education (Ramos,
Aguilar and Sibayan, 1967: 37±43, 123±5). The Aguilar study and many others indicated
that Filipino children learned more effectively, and were better able to apply what they
learned in schools in their home and communities when the vernacular was used. These
experiments provided empirical evidence on the pedagogical benefits of using local
languages in education, or to state it negatively, on the pedagogical disadvantages of
using English as medium of instruction.
There were two other relevant developments in the educational circles that contributed
to the criticism of the English-only policy during the 1950s. The first was the UNESCO
monograph affirming the necessity of beginning schooling in the students' mother tongue
`because they understand it best and because to begin their school life in the mother tongue
will make the break between the home and school as small as possible' (UNESCO, 1953:
691). The second was the report of Prator (1950) on language education in the Philippines
that introduced the idea of teaching English as a second language.

Education using the vernaculars and teaching English as a second language

The experiments in vernacular education and related developments culminated in 1957
with the promulgation of the Revised Philippine Education Program (Bureau of Public
Schools, 1957), which provided for the use of the vernaculars as language of instruction for
the first two grades of elementary school. At these grades, English was taught as a subject,
but was not used as the medium of instruction. The program also provided for a shift to
English as medium of instruction from third grade through college, using the vernacular
as auxiliary medium of instruction in Grades 3 and 4, and Pilipino, as auxiliary medium
in Grades 5 and 6. This change marked an important shift in the role of English in
Philippine education. English was still the medium of instruction in most of the formal
education system. However, the pedagogy was now consistent with strategies for teaching
English as a second language. Materials used for instruction were now developed locally,
with Filipino authors writing English materials intended for Filipino readers. Most

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

20 Allan B. I. Bernardo

importantly, English was no longer the exclusive language of instruction. At this point,
Pilipino and other local languages were acknowledged to have important roles in the
education of Filipinos.

The nationalist resistance to English

A stronger threat to the pre-eminence of English came during the late 1960s with the rise
in the nationalist movement and of anti-imperialist, i.e., anti-colonial and anti-American,
sentiments. The use of English in the formal educational system became a target for this
movement, and the writings of nationalist scholar Renato Constantino were particularly
potent in crystallizing the negative attitudes towards the use of English in schools.
Constantino (1982: 6), wrote:
The first, and perhaps the master stroke in the plan to use education as an instrument of colonial
policy was the decision to use English as the medium of instruction. English became the wedge
that separated the Filipinos from their past and later was to separate educated Filipinos from the
masses of their countrymen. English introduced the Filipinos to a strange, new world. With
American textbooks, Filipinos started learning not only the new language but also a new way of
life, alien to their traditions . . . This was the beginning of their education. At the same time it was
the beginning of their miseducation.

This point of view was amended by other scholars who noted how the prevailing
educational system embodied not the Filipino ideals and character, but those of the
American colonial/imperialist agenda. The reported consequence of this was the develop-
ment of Filipinos who thought in ways the Americans wanted them to think. For example,
Corpuz (1970: 70) wrote that: `The education process . . . rooted deep in the Filipino mind
a predisposition, in the resolution of political issues, to appreciate and understand the
American point of view.'
Proponents of a nationalist educational system advocated the total abandonment of
English as the medium of instruction because the continued use of English perpetuated a
colonial mindset among Filipinos. Proponents of this argument also advocated the
promotion of Pilipino as the language that would liberate the Filipino mind from its
colonial past and neo-colonial present (Melendrez-Cruz, 1996).

The Bilingual Education Policy

According to Sibayan (1986), the advocates of a nationalist educational system prodded
the Institute of National Language (INL) to propose that Pilipino be made the medium of
instruction at elementary level, and that English be abandoned as a medium of instruction.
The INL actually made a proposal to that effect to the National Board of Education
(NBE), but the proposal was rejected. However, a committee was formed to formulate
guidelines for the implementation of a policy of the NBE to develop `a bilingual nation
able to communicate in Pilipino as well as in English'. This committee came to be known as
the Soriano Committee, and its formulations became the blueprint for the Bilingual
Education Policy that was implemented in 1974 (Department of Education, 1974). The
Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) of 1974 mandated the use of English and Pilipino as
media of instruction in elementary and high schools according to a set timetable. The goal
was to develop students' language proficiencies in both languages. Two domains were
identified, and the subjects in the curriculum were divided into the English domain

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 21

(English communication arts, mathematics, science) and the Pilipino domain (all other
subjects including Pilipino communication arts, social studies, history).
In 1985, after over a decade of its implementation, Gonzalez and Sibayan (1988)
conducted an extensive evaluation of the BEP. The evaluation was undertaken partly to
verify whether perceptions regarding the BEP (e.g., that it led to a decline in overall student
achievement) were true. Interestingly, in a significant number of schools, the BEP had not
been implemented even ten years after the policy had been promulgated. Questions can be
raised, therefore, as to whether the BEP was being implemented as planned. More
important, the findings of the study suggest that the shift to BEP did not result in any
significant gains or losses in overall student achievement. However, there were some trends
that suggested (1) the BEP benefited students from Tagalog-speaking regions, including
the National Capital Region, particularly those from the better private and public schools,
and (2) students educated under the BEP did better in social studies and worse in English
than the non-BEP students. The study asserted that the perceived deterioration of student
learning was probably due to factors like inadequate teacher training, textbooks and
learning materials, rather than the implementation of the policy itself. Nevertheless, there
was some evidence that the implementation of the BEP had contributed to the decline in
students' proficiency in English.
In 1987, the BEP was reiterated in a new policy by the Department of Education,
Culture, and Sports. Although the same provisions were stated in this new policy, the role
of the two languages in education was recast. In particular, Filipino was mandated to be
the language of literacy and the language of scholarly discourse, while English was
described as the international language and the non-exclusive language of science and
technology. Thus the role of Filipino as the language of learning and intellectual discourse
was emphasized, whereas the role of English was now more narrowly defined. The policy
also stipulated that higher education institutions should take the lead in `intellectualizing'
Filipino. However, even after all this recasting, nothing was changed regarding the
implementation of the policy at most levels of education.
In 1991, a report of the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) explicitly
recommended that all subjects, except English, be taught in Filipino at the elementary and
secondary levels. This recommendation was passionately debated in the various mass
media and in academic circles, but this specific recommendation remained unimplemented.
The most forceful move that would have effectively removed English from its privileged
position in Philippine education just did not come to pass.

Bilingual education in Philippine classrooms today

Today, it is possible to evaluate how English is used in Philippine schools by
referring to recent studies of the use of language in Philippine education. Brigham
and Castillo (1999) conducted the most recent one, and they found that the imple-
mentation of the BEP was flawed on many counts. Some of their observations include
the assertions that:
1. Language instruction in the Philippines, both in English and Filipino, emphasizes mechanics,
structures and rules of language, and neglects the more important functional, creative, and
communication skills.
2. Many Filipino teachers are not adequately prepared to teach in either English or Filipino. In
some cases, the language proficiency scores of the teachers were lower than those of their
pupils.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

22 Allan B. I. Bernardo

3. There is a significant amount of resistance to the BEP; many teachers, students, and
administrators, particularly in big cities in the southern islands of the Philippines, prefer an
English-only policy for instruction. These sectors perceive that English is the language of
power, upward social and economic mobility, global communication and competitiveness
(Castillo, 2000).

Other attitudinal studies suggest an uncertain future for English, for Filipino, and for
bilingualism in the Philippine educational system, and different perceptions of the
importance of English in education exist in different parts of the country. Fuentes
and Mojica (1999) surveyed college students mainly from the Luzon area and found that
the students had more favorable attitudes towards English than Filipino, although most
of the students expressed positive attitudes towards using both languages for instruction.
The study suggests that students still value English, but that students also favor bilingual
education. Kobari's (1999) survey of students from Cebu in the south suggests a similar
pattern. Students still overwhelmingly prefer English for most types of academic
activities, but there is a clear increase in their willingness to use Filipino and Cebuano
for certain activities. It seems that bilingual education has gained a wide acceptance, but
that, notwithstanding, there is still a clear preference for the use of English in education.
This preference seems to be largely based on the perceived usefulness of English for
learning, communication, and advancement.
Other researchers have investigated how English is actually taught and used in the
classrooms today, and how effective its use is. Vilches (2000) reports on classroom
observations, interviews with teachers, the analysis of English textbooks and lesson
plans, and other aspects of classroom practice. She suggests that many teachers'
questions and classroom discussion tend to be at the most basic level of literal
comprehension, and that teachers often fail to employ the kinds of effective teaching
methodologies that would evoke higher-level analytical and critical skills among their
students. Vilches also reports that teachers tend to dominate the activities in the
classroom (i.e., students have low levels of involvement), and that this prevents
students from learning independently or interactively. Moreover, teachers tend to
rely on traditional presentation/practice structure in teaching language rules, and
demand mostly mechanical repetition and memorization from the students. Vilches
summarizes the implications of these observations quite succinctly thus: `English
language teaching in the Philippine secondary schools needs to be more consciously
veered away from its tendency to make teaching an end in itself, forgetting that it is
just a means to facilitating learning' (2000: 11). It does seem that the way English is
being taught in schools does not allow students to learn how to use the English
language effectively to communicate and engage ideas in a more intellectually sophis-
ticated manner.
Sibayan (2000) also takes a pessimistic view about the current consequences of bilingual
education in the Philippines. In particular, he laments that the flawed implementation of
the BEP has unintentionally produced `semilinguals', which he defines as individuals who
have inadequate command of English and Filipino and inadequate command or knowl-
edge of subject matter content in the two languages (2000: 253). Sibayan argues that these
semilinguals include those who have dropped out from basic education, many of those who
completed high school and college education, and even many teachers in elementary,
secondary, and tertiary schools.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 23

The unresolved issue

Presently, the medium of instruction issue has not yet been resolved, the 1987 reiteration
of the BEP notwithstanding. When in 1999, the Department of Education, Culture, and
Sports floated the idea of using three vernacular languages (Tagalog-based Filipino,
Ilocano, and Cebuano) in the early grades, the matter was fiercely debated in the different
mass media. Although English still enjoys a privileged status in Philippine education, the
recurring debates on this issue suggest that the pre-eminence of English is by no means
unassailable. More than one hundred years after the establishment of English-medium
education by the Americans, the Philippine educational system still appears unsure
whether to either accept or reject the McKinley bequest.

COMPETING AGENDA, COMPETING DISCOURSES

As it is with many burning social issues, the medium of instruction issue in the
Philippines continues to stay lit, as different stakeholders in this issue have adopted and
advocated discourses that are (mindfully or unmindfully) consistent with their own social
agenda. In this section of the paper, I attempt to draw attention to the competing
discourses and agenda that underpin different positions regarding a medium of instruction
issue in general, and the role of English in Philippine education in particular. I note at least
three themes underlying arguments for the exclusive and/or strengthened use of English in
Philippine education: (1) the use of English for social integration and/or control, (2) the
utility of English in the economic and intellectual domains, and (3) the pragmatic
difficulties of shifting away from English. On the other hand, I see at least two themes
underlying arguments for the abandonment and/or the diminished use of English in
Philippine education: (4) the colonizing power of English, and (5) the damaging effects of
English on learning.

English for social integration and/or control

The American colonial government explicitly stated that English was preferred over the
other local languages as it could serve as a means of unifying the ethnolinguistically diverse
Filipino people. Even today, a similar argument is heard, i.e. that the use of English as a
teaching medium serves as a unifying element in forestalling debates about which
Philippine languages might best serve as media of instruction, an historically contentious
debate.
But has English actually united the Filipino people? Some scholars have answered yes,
and some no. Wurfel (1988: 24), for example, argues that the introduction of the American
colonial educational system in English developed a Filipino national identity of `a variety
inoffensive to the colonial masters'. Constantino (1974), however, suggests that among
Filipino people, there is a disparity between national identity and national consciousness.
While most Filipinos in the different regions of the country identify themselves with a
common nationality there is still no shared consciousness or sense of `oneness' that arises
from sharing the same aspirations, responses, and actions. Instead, it seems that many
Filipinos today share the aspirations, responses, and actions of their American colonizers.
In this regard, some scholars (e.g., Enriquez and Protacio-Marcelino, 1984; OrdonÄez, 1999;
San Juan, 1998) argue that the use of English and the American colonial educational
system might have been too successful in unifying the Filipino people. For them, the

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

24 Allan B. I. Bernardo

Filipino people were unified through the development of a colonized attitude towards the
United States, the English language, and the American point of view. One so entrenched
that such attitudes persist more than 50 years after independence from the USA. The
argument to maintain English as medium of instruction is therefore also an argument for
maintaining neo-colonialism (see also Tupas, this issue).

The utility of English

Another set of overt arguments for maintaining English as medium of instruction relate
to the perceived advantage of English (over Filipino and all other local languages) as a
medium for intellectual pursuits, for international communication, for economic advance-
ment, especially in the current globalizing world environment. From the beginning of the
American colonial educational system, it was already argued that English would be the
better medium to allow Filipinos access to the knowledge of civilizations. At present,
similar arguments are still advocated, as most knowledge in various domains of learning is
documented in the English language. This is particularly true at the most advanced levels
of the scholarly and scientific disciplines (Gonzalez, 2000). The argument is that, compared
to all local languages, English is much more intellectualized and is thus more appropriate
for use in the domains of higher education, science and technology.
In addition to being the language of intellectual pursuits, English is also the language
used in most of the `controlling domains' in the Philippine setting (Gonzalez, this volume).
Sibayan (1994a) defines controlling domains as the domains of power and prestige, and the
domains that control the national and individual lives of people. In the Philippines, these
include (1) government administration, (2) legislation, (3) the judicial system, (4) business,
commerce, and industry, (5) the professions, (6) mass media, and the two domains
mentioned earlier (7) higher education, and (8) science and technology. In nearly all of
these domains, the institutions, structures, and processes require that one be proficient in
English (Gonzalez, Bernardo, Bautista, and Pascasio, 2000; Sibayan, 1994a). It makes
sense, therefore, that schools should try to develop English language proficiencies among
Filipino students, as long as English is so important to such domains. That English is the
language used in these domains is, of course, related to the colonial project of the
Americans. For half a century, institutions, systems, and processes were set up using
English (in some cases a shift from Spanish was involved, Sibayan, 1994a). There was no
concurrent effort to develop the use of any of the local languages in these domains, which
makes it very difficult to undertake a shift to Filipino or any of the local languages even to
this day.
Another strong force supports the maintenance of English in the controlling domains,
and this force is globalization and its various manifestations. As national boundaries are
more easily transgressed for purposes of trade, as labor markets become more global, and
as new communication and information technologies make information access, utilization,
and exchange more efficient across countries, the need for a single language to facilitate
these transactions becomes stronger. English has become the pre-eminent language for
this purpose (Doronila, 1994; Gonzalez, 2000). Maintaining and strengthening English
language education becomes most crucial if viewed in this context.

The pragmatic difficulties in shifting away from English

Even those who strongly advocate the use of Filipino or the vernaculars for instruction
acknowledge that there are very practical difficulties in implementing such a policy. Even

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 25

during the era of the American colonial government, pragmatic difficulties prevented
attempts to shift the medium of instruction from English to the local languages. In
particular, there was concern about both the American teachers' inability to teach using
the local languages and the lack of local teachers who could teach in local vernaculars, as
well as the absence of textbooks and other learning materials in the local languages. There
was also a concern that the local languages were not intellectualized enough to afford
access to the wealth of knowledge at that time.
As the educational system and processes in English became even more entrenched over
the years, these difficulties persisted and even intensified. For example, although Filipinos
eventually gained qualifications to teach, their credentials were earned by going through
the colonial educational system in English. As successful products of the system that was in
place, it was unlikely that they would depart from the established practices of that system.
As the formal school system expanded with the increase in population, the problems of
producing learning materials in local languages were huge. As knowledge in the various
domains of learning rapidly expanded in the last century, the task of making translations
of these materials became increasingly unmanageable. These difficulties persist to the
present day, and have been compounded by the effects of globalization.
Indeed, the shift from English to Filipino or any of the local languages would have to
involve all of the following: (1) the massive translation of the literature in different
domains of learning, (2) the continuous long-term development, formalization, and
standardization of the local language systems for scholarly purposes, (3) the development,
experimentation, and evaluation of pedagogies involving the use of local languages, (4) the
extensive and systematic training and re-training of teachers in the use of local languages
for instruction, (5) the massive production and evaluation of textbooks and other learning
materials, (6) the preparation of testing and evaluation systems in the local languages, and
(7) the sustained dissemination of public information to gain acceptance of the shift,
among others (Congressional Commission on Education, 1991; Sibayan, 1989, 1991,
1994b). This is clearly a daunting task. So much so that some have proposed that at
least a hundred years would be needed to effectively meet such goals (Sibayan, 1999). For
many, the efforts needed to realize an effective shift to using local languages are just too
overwhelming, and therefore English has to be retained by default.

The colonizing power of English

The very arguments used to justify the maintenance of English in education become the
arguments for proposing the repudiation of English when the supposed benefits are
assessed from the perspectives of those who are least likely to benefit from the utility of
English. For example, as discussed earlier, the noble goal of social integration from a
colonial perspective means social control and subjugation of diverse communities in order
to align their perspectives and actions with the agenda of the colonizers. As Constantino
(1982: 19) asserts, the use of English was instrumental in the `mis-education' of Filipinos:
`education saw to it that the Filipino mind was subservient to that of the master.'
Therefore, the use of English as medium of instruction (and as language in the controlling
domains) should be ceased so as to avert the continuous subjugation of the Filipinos within
the colonial/post-colonial dynamics. With the renunciation of English, liberation of the
Filipino people from their colonial/post-colonial ties can begin (Enriquez and Protacio-
Marcelino, 1984; Melendrez-Cruz, 1996).
In a similar recasting of the arguments for the utility of the English language, advocates

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

26 Allan B. I. Bernardo

in favor of the rejection of English observe that the supposed intellectual, social and
economic advantages gained with English proficiency are actually largely restricted to the
sectors of Philippine society who are already privileged (Tupas, 2001, this issue). Accord-
ing to Sibayan and Gonzalez (1996: 149), socioeconomic status `is the most significant and
influential factor in gaining access to competence in English through the schools'. Tupas
(2001: 15) asserts: `those who attain near-native competence in the language because of
excellent education belong to the top five percent of the population and usually come from
Metro Manila and other urban centers of the country.' On the other hand, those coming
from the middle socioeconomic class `learn English in less-than-ideal circumstances, have a
short pre-university learning experience of 10 years . . . and for the most part attain a
passive competence in English . . . These are the ones chosen by a social selection process to
occupy lower-level positions in business establishments and shop-floor jobs' (Sibayan and
Gonzalez, 1996: 151). Finally, the poor are severely limited in their access to education,
much less to quality education in the English language. If they do manage to finish
secondary schooling, they enter the poorest quality colleges, end up speaking imperfect
English, risk failing the professional licensure examinations (which are given in English),
and end up with low paying, low level jobs if they manage to gain employment at all. As
Sibayan and Gonzalez noted, only a small minority of the poor actually become socially
mobile in this context.
It does not seem, therefore, that maintaining English as the medium of instruction
affords the opportunities for intellectual and economic advancement as purported.
Instead, the opportunities for advancement seem to be largely restricted to those who
already enjoy social and economic advantages in Philippine society (Gonzalez, 1980).
Because of the poor quality of the public education system, the overwhelming majority of
the poor simply are deprived of access to the quality of English language education that is
needed to gain these opportunities for advancement. As Tollefson (1991: 139) has
suggested, English might not be a solution to the poverty experienced by some children,
instead it may actually be part of the cause of their poverty.

The damaging effects of English on learning

Among the different arguments for or against maintaining English as the medium of
instruction, the arguments that are underpinned by the most consistent empirical evidence
relate to the damaging effects of English on Filipino student learning. The earliest
evaluations of the American colonial educational system in the Philippines already pointed
to the problems of using a foreign language in establishing literacy and basic knowledge.
Empirical studies comparing the use of the vernacular to that of English in the 1940s and
1950s clearly showed that students studying in English were not learning as much as they
could if they were studying in their mother tongue (Ramos, Aguilar, and Sibayan, 1967).
Presently, more and more empirical studies indicate the benefits of using the vernacular
(and thus, the disadvantages of using English) in establishing basic literacy and learning
competencies (e.g., Baguingan, 2000; de Guzman, 1998; Dekker, 1999; Errington, 1999),
even in the more conceptual levels of disciplines that are widely perceived to be best taught
in English (e.g., Bernardo, 1999, 2000, 2002; Espiritu and Villena, 1996; Reyes, 2000).
Indeed, the use of one's native tongue to learn is the most intuitive and natural option in
nearly all sovereign countries, so much so that hardly anyone thinks it should be otherwise.
In this regard, one may wonder why there is even a need for empirical research on what
is rather obvious for most people. Constantino (1982: 12) asserts that `so great is our

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 27

disorientation caused by our colonial education that the use of our own language is a
controversial issue, with more Filipinos against than in favor!'
The consistent findings of empirical research of this issue converge with commonly-held
intuitions and point to several interrelated conclusions. First, students learn better in their
mother tongue. Second, students do not learn as well in English; in some cases, they do not
learn at all. Third, using English as the medium of instruction in some subject areas
prevents students from learning as much as they could if the mother tongue were used. In
some cases, specific obstacles to learning are clearly associated with difficulties with the
English language. Fourth, the ones who will benefit most from education in the English
language are those who have good levels of proficiency in English to begin with and/or
those who grow up in environments where English language inputs, materials, and
resources are abundant.
The last conclusion resonates very well with an earlier theme ± that the supposed utility
of English is actually available only to those who already enjoy advantages, and that
maintenance of English merely serves to widen the gap between those who have and have
not these advantages. And here lies the most harmful long-term effect on learning of
maintaining English as the medium of instruction. The small proportion of the population
who have easily acquired English language proficiencies in their enriched milieu will have
the best chances of learning in the various domains taught in English. They will have an
ever-widening array of options available for further education, even in foreign countries.
But the overwhelming majority of the population, who will forever struggle with English as
a foreign language, will likely find their limited proficiencies in English a major stumbling
block to learning in the various domains of knowledge. They are the ones who are most
likely to feel alienated by the rarefied atmosphere of the classroom where they are
obligated to speak in English. They are those most likely to fail in examinations and
writing requirements in English, to perceive much of formal education as irrelevant, and to
drop out of school altogether.

PROSPECTS FOR ENGLISH IN PHILIPPINE EDUCATION

The above themes comprise much of the competing discourse on the medium of
instruction issue in general, and the role of English in Philippine education in particular.
Depending on the position being advocated, proponents co-opt specific arguments within
the various themes to state their case. As each of these arguments can be quite compelling
in its own way to specific sectors of Philippine society, it is no wonder that the issue of
language in education has never been resolved. Presently, English is still the principal
language of instruction in Philippine formal education. This status is maintained by
discourses that emphasize the role of English in integrating an ethnolinguistically diverse
nation, in gaining access to intellectual and socioeconomic advancement, particularly in a
global cultural and economic environment. The difficulties involved in shifting from
English to the local languages for instruction are also underscored. But past shifts in the
language of education policy responded to strong arguments and empirical evidence that
English had failed as a language for developing national identity and national conscious-
ness, and as a language for effective learning, particularly at the most critical stages of
basic education. Today, the failure of English is particularly felt by the overwhelming
majority of Filipinos who live in environments where English is an alien language and who
go to schools that provide poor quality education in English.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

28 Allan B. I. Bernardo

Pragmatic multilingualism in education

Most recently, some educators and policymakers seem to have formed a consensus on a
pragmatic compromise that addresses many of the arguments raised by the various
competing discourses on this question. This consensus can be discerned from the most
recent recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER,
2000). The key PCER recommendation on the medium of instruction issue is labeled
`Expanding the options for medium of instruction for the first grade' and states:
The Bilingual Education Curriculum prescribed by DECS shall be the minimum standard to be
followed by all schools . . . However, schools can more flexibly adopt a mix of more Filipino
and/or English depending on the capabilities and needs of students. (2000: 64)

In addition, two other specific reforms were suggested:

Where applicable, i.e., where there exists a strong support system, use the regional lingua franca
or vernacular as . . . (medium of instruction) for Grade 1. The subjects `Good Manners and Right
Conduct' and Sibika shall be taught in the regional lingua franca. English and Filipino shall be
taught as separate subjects.
For Grade 2 and up, the BEP will be applied, i.e., the subjects Science and Mathematics will be
taught in English, with the rest of the courses to be taught in Filipino. However, Science and
Mathematics may be taught in Filipino provided that there will be strong support for the writing
of instructional materials in Filipino and intense training of Science and Mathematics teachers in
Filipino.

These suggestions for reform represent substantial improvements over the original BEP
which simply defined which subjects should be taught in English and in Filipino. The
PCER proposals acknowledge the multilingualism inherent in the experience of most
Filipinos today (unlike the BEP which seems to assume bilingualism rather than multi-
lingualism), where different contexts and experiences require the use of the vernacular,
Filipino, English, and even some other dialects. Moreover, the proposals clearly under-
score the important role of the mother tongue in establishing early literacy and learning in
the various subject areas, in learning a second and third language, and also the importance
of learning in the early years in establishing the foundational knowledge upon which all
future learning will be scaffolded. The proposal also recognizes how language difficulties in
Filipino and in English can contribute to problems in learning and to dropping out of
school. Finally, the proposals clearly indicate a more reasonable understanding of the
requirements for effective instruction in any language as regards the preparation of
instructional materials and training of teachers (PCER, 2000: 116±123; Castillo, 2000).
The preceding observations indicate that the arguments regarding the harmful effects of
English on learning, as well as the pragmatic problems for shifting to Filipino and/or the
vernacular, were noted. The PCER Report (2000: 64, 123) also states that English shall be
maintained and even strengthened in schools, thus also showing that the arguments for the
importance of English in Philippine society are acknowledged. The report seems to
embody a pragmatic compromise that takes into consideration some key elements of the
issues and situates these within a reasonable appraisal of the realities of formal education
in the Philippine context.
The report, however, does not directly address the more social and ideological argu-
ments for or against the role of English in Philippine education. In particular, the report
makes no explicit reference to any of the arguments relating to the links between language,

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 29

nationalism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. Other nationalist scholars, however, have

proposed alternative ways to address the problem of neo-colonialism in Philippine
education given the present pre-eminent status of English. Lumbera (1988), for example,
has proposed that English language teaching in the Philippine should focus on the
liberating functions of English. This focus requires that teachers be aware that the
language is not neutral, and that English has been and is being used to subjugate and
manipulate the Filipino mind (see also Tupas, 1999). According to Lumbera, this
awareness should then allow the teacher to use the access function of English to engage
students in writings and ideas that develop a more liberating and nationalist perspective
regarding Philippine realities. More recently, Tope (1998) embeds similar arguments within
post-colonial discourse and argues that the relationship between the colonizer and the
colonized is a reciprocal one. Thus, as English has had an indelible effect on the Filipino
mind, Filipino culture has also impinged on English. Tope suggests that the emergence of
Philippine English and use of localized forms are examples of such impingement. Scholars
can use this framework to underscore how a colonized culture can subtly but significantly
repudiate a strong form of colonial imposition. The manner by which we Filipinos use
English in education, therefore, can be the means by which we begin disassembling the
colonial character of our educational system. The arguments of Lumbera and Tope are
also exemplars of pragmatic compromise within less than ideal contexts in which to
develop the ideal educational system.

CONCLUSION

The emerging pragmatic compromises regarding the role of English in Philippine formal
education clearly indicate that English no longer enjoys the sole privileged role it enjoyed a
hundred years ago. English now has a much more circumscribed role as a language of
access, and the primary role of Filipino and other local languages in the more basic
educative functions is being underscored. The question is whether the actual structures and
processes within the Philippine educational system will be able to actualize the ideals of
these pragmatic compromises.
It is uncertain how the specific role of English in Philippine education will develop in the
near future. But what should perhaps be emphasized is that the changes in the role and
status of English in Philippine education almost never occur as a consequence of purely
pedagogical considerations. The short history of English in Philippine education clearly
shows that political, ideological, and other socioeconomic considerations will always
strongly bear on the issue. Therefore, it is imperative that any discussion regarding the
role of English in Philippine education reject the position that English as a language is
neutral with respect to what kinds of Filipinos emerge from Philippine schools. Education,
after all, is not simply about acquiring skills and knowledge. More importantly, education
is about developing perspectives and tools of analysis with which people can come to
understand and engage the problems in their personal and social environments. In this
regard, McKinley's bequest demands serious questioning.

NOTE
1. Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the College of Education Research Council,
DLSU-Manila.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

30 Allan B. I. Bernardo

REFERENCES
Alberca, Wilfredo L. (1994) English language teaching in the Philippines during the early American period:
lessons from the Thomasites. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 25(1±2), 53±74.
Baguingan, Gloria D. (2000) Grassroots legitimacy: the first language component bridging program pilot project
of region 2 and CAR. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 93±105.
Bernabe, Emma J. F. (1978) Language Policy Formulation, Programming, Implementation, and Evaluation in the
Philippines (1956±1974). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Bernardo, Allan B. I. (1999) Overcoming obstacles to understanding and solving word problems in mathematics.
Educational Psychology, 19(2), 149±63.
Bernardo, Allan B. I. (2000) The multifarious effects of language on mathematical learning and performance
among bilinguals: a cognitive science perspective. In Parangal Cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew
Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday. Edited by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, Teodoro A. Llamzon, and Bonifacio P.
Sibayan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 303±16.
Bernardo, Allan B. I. (2002) Language and mathematical problem solving among bilinguals. Journal of
Psychology. 136, 283±97.
Brigham, Susan and Castillo, Emma S. (1999) Language Policy Formulation in the Philippines (Technical
Background Paper No. 6, Philippine Educational Sector Study). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Bureau of Public Schools (1957) Revised Philippine Educational Program (Order No. 1). Manila: Author.
Castillo, Emma S. (2000) Language related recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Educational
Reform. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 39±47.
Congressional Commission on Education (1991) Making Education Work: An agenda for reform. Manila and
Quezon City: Congressional Commission on Education.
Constantino, Renato (1974) Identity and Consciousness: The Philippine experience. Quezon City: Foundation for
Nationalist Studies.
Constantino, Renato (1982) The Miseducation of the Filipino. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies.
Corpuz, Onofre D. (1970) The Philippines. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
de Guzman, Estefania S. (1998) Assessing Content Learning in a Second Language Context (Research Series No.
36). Manila: Philippine Normal University.
Dekker, P. Gregory (1999) First language component literacy: a bridge over troubled waters. In The Filipino
Bilingual: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Edited by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista and Grace O. Tan. Manila:
Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 94±102.
Department of Education (1974) Implementing Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education (Department
Order No. 25, s. 1974). Manila: Department of Education.
Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (1987) The 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education (DECS Order No.
52, s. 1987). Manila: Department of Education.
Doronila, Amando (1994) That language debate. Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 28, p. 5.
Enriquez, Virgilio G. and Protacio-Marcelino, Elizabeth (1984) Neo-Colonial Politics and Language Struggle in
the Philippines. Quezon City: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Errington, Ellen (1999) The place of literacy in a multilingual society. In The Filipino Bilingual: A multidisciplinary
perspective. Edited by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista and Grace O. Tan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines,
pp. 87±93.
Espiritu, Clemencia C. and Villena, Rosemarievic G. (1996) Ang Pagsasalin sa Filipino ng Aklat sa Mathematics I
para sa Antas Terserya at Pagsubok sa Paggamit Nito [Translating the Mathematics I Textbook into Filipino
and its Pilot Testing] (Research Series No. 35). Manila: Philippine Normal University.
Fuentes, Gloria G. and Mojica, Leonisa A. (1999) A study of the language attitudes of selected Filipino bilingual
students toward Filipino and English. In The Filipino Bilingual: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edited by Ma.
Lourdes S. Bautista and Grace O. Tan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 50±5.
Gonzalez, Andrew (1980) Language and Nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Gonzalez, Andrew (2000) English, Filipino and other languages at the crossroads: facing the challenges of the new
millennium. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 5±8.
Gonzalez, Andrew and Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (eds.) (1988) Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines
(1974±1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Gonzalez, Andrew, Bernardo, Allan B. I., Bautista, Ma. Lourdes S., and Pascasio, Emy M. (2000) The social
sciences and policy making in language. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 27±37.
Kobari, Yoshihiro (1999) Reassessment after 15 years: attitudes of the students of Cebu Institute of Technology
towards Filipino in tertiary education. In The Filipino Bilingual: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edited by Ma.
Lourdes S. Bautista and Grace O. Tan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 56±64.
Lumbera, Cynthia Nograles (1988) Towards a Relevant Education. Quezon City: Education Forum.
Martin, Ma. Isabel Pefianco (1999) Language and institution: roots of bilingualism in the Philippines. In The
Filipino Bilingual: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edited by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista and Grace O. Tan.
Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 132±6.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

 McKinley's questionable bequest 31

Melendrez-Cruz, Patricia (1996) Ang pulitika ng wikang panturo [The politics of the language of instruction]. In
Wika at Lipunan [Language and Society]. Edited by Pamela C. Constantino and Monico M. Atienza. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 194±217.
Monroe, Paul (1925) Survey of the Educational System of the Philippines. Manila: Bureau of Printing.
OrdonÄez, Elmer (1999) English and decolonization. Journal of Asian English Studies, 2(1±2), 17±21.
PCER [Presidential Commission on Educational Reform] (2000) Philippine Agenda for Educational Reform: The
PCER Report. Manila: Presidential Commission on Educational Reform.
Prator, Clifford H. (1950) Language Teaching in the Philippines. Manila: United States Educational Foundation.
Ramos, Maximino, Aguilar, Jose V., and Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (eds.) (1967) The Determination and Implementa-
tion of Language Policy. Quezon City: Alemars-Phoenix.
Reyes, Melissa Lopez (2000) Differential effects of mathematical ability and language use on computational and
conceptual knowledge of descriptive statistics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 9(1), 83±115.
Salamanca, Bonifacio (1968) The Filipino Reaction to American Rule: 1901±1913. USA: The Shoe String Press.
Saleeby, Najeeb Mitry (1924) The Language of Education of the Philippine Islands. Manila: privately printed.
San Juan, Epifanio, Jr. (1998) One hundred years of reproducing and reproducing the `Filipino'. Amerasia
Journal, 24(2), 1±35.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1967) The implementation of language policy. In The Determination and Implementation of
Language Policy. Edited by Maximino Ramos, Jose V. Aguilar and Bonifacio P. Sibayan. Quezon City:
Alemars-Phoenix, pp. 126±89.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1978) Bilingual education in the Philippines: strategy and structure. In Georgetown
University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Edited by James E. Alatis. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press, pp. 302±79.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1986) Pilipino and the Filipino's renewed search for a linguistic symbol of a unity and
identity. In The Fergusonian Impact: Sociolinguistics and the sociology of language. Edited by Joshua A.
Fishman, volume 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 351±60.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1989) Terms and points of reference in intellectualization with particular reference to
Filipino. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 7±12.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1991) The intellectualization of Filipino. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 88, 68±82.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1994a) The role and status of English vis-aÁ-vis Filipino and other languages in the
Philippines. In English and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian contribution. Edited by T. Kandiah and J.
Kwan-Terry. Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 218±41.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1994b) The teaching of the technical disciplines in Filipino. Unitas, 67(1), 88±9.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (1999) A suggested one-hundred-year time-table for the intellectualization of Filipino. In
The Intellectualization of Filipino and Other Essays on Education and Sociolinguistics. Edited by Bonifacio P.
Sibayan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 229±40.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. (2000) Resulting patterns of sociolinguistic, socioeconomic, and cultural practice and
behavior after more than four hundred years of language policy and practice in the Philippines. In Parangal can
Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday. Edited by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista,
Teodoro A. Llamzon, and Bonifacio P. Sibayan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 247±61.
Sibayan, Bonifacio P. and Andrew Gonzalez (1996) Post-imperial English in the Philippines. In. Post-imperial
English: Status change in former British and American colonies, 1940±1900. Edited by Joshua A. Fishman,
Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 139±72.
Tollefson, James W. (1991) Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language policy in the community. London
and New York: Longman.
Tope, Lily Rose (1998) Appropriating language: language and nationalism in Southeast Asia. Diliman Review,
46(3±4), 25±40.
Tupas, T. Ruanni F. (1999) What happens if linguistics goes critical? Implications for English language education
in the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 8, 129±51.
Tupas, T. Ruanni F. (2001) Linguistic imperialism in the Philippines: reflections of an English language teacher of
Filipino overseas workers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 10(1), 1±40.
UNESCO (1953) The Use of Vernacular Language in Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Vilches, Ma. Luz (2000) Promoting language learning in secondary ELT: the PELT Project experience. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 107±13.
Wurfel, David (1988) Filipino Politics: Development and decay. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

A Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004

View publication stats