Professional Documents
Culture Documents
language-in-education policy
implementation
D
B Language Profile in Lanao del Norte
A
TRIBE / GROUP LANGUAGE POPULATION
C
1. Bisaya/Cebuano Cebuano/Bisaya 60.39%
K
2. Maranao Meranao 35.80%
G
3. Subanen Subanen 3.03%
R
4. Other Tribes Boholano/Kankanai/ 1.78%
O Ilokano
U
N
D
MAJOR CHALLENGE
B
A
C Reading Profile in Lanao del Norte
(PhilIRI Pre-Test Result SY 2019-2020)
K
G Grade Enrollment Non- Frustration
R Level Readers
O 4-7 40,608 2,359 17,780
U
N
D
• Issues and challenges teachers
RESEARCH have encountered in bridging L1
QUESTION #1 to L2 to L3.
• Instructional materials learners
RESEARCH in Lanao del Norte have used for
QUESTION #2 MTB-MLE, Filipino an English
classes.
• KII
METHODOLOGY • FGD
• Actual Class
Observation
üLimited MTB-MLE reading
materials.
üDiversity of languages –
Meranao, Bisaya, Subanen.
FINDINGS
üLearners are more familiar with
Filipino and English due to social
media and casual conversations.
üSome teachers in Maranao-
dominated schools cannot
speak Meranao.
FINDINGS
üStories written by some
teachers are unpublished
and undocumented.
üNo reading material in Lanao del
Norte that teaches ethnicity,
Lanao history and culture.
DISCUSSIONS
§ Lanao’s way of getting into inclusion
and mobility.
(Final Output-
multilingual
book written
and published
by the
language
teachers).
LANAO DEL NORTE
can then look forward to multilingual
generation who remain deeply rooted in
their unique culture.
IN C L US IV E G O V E RN A N C E F O R
LA N G UA G E A N D D E V E L O PM E N T:
IN S IG H TS A N D H O PE S
Establishment of Purchase of
Establishment of Portable learning
ALS Learning Learning Kits for
Centers for Teens- tents-Res.No.2 s.
Centers-Res. No.2 Mobile OHSP-
Res.No. 2 s. 2018 2018
s. 2018 Res.No.2 s. 2018
RESEARCH §
§
Frontline (field)
Community
QUESTION #3
§ Interviews
§ FGDs
§ Document Analysis
METHODOLOGY
§ Institutional “understanding”
articulated by policy guidance
§ DO No. 16 s 2012
§ DO No. 28 s 2013
FINDINGS § DO No. 21 s 2019
§ Frontline (field implementers)
§ Policy guides-based delivery with
gaps here and there
§ Variations in implementation for
cultural/geographic considerations
§ Community understanding and
appreciation shaped by
§ official state position, action,
pronouncement
FINDINGS § alternative notion, and
§ mixture/by-product of
different/differing official and
alternative positions
§ Advocates
§ Divided along ideological lines and
pragramatic considerations
§ Levels of operationalization
determined by
§ Quality/kind of leadership
§ Chief state agency/ies and local
FINDINGS § Performance-driven
§ “Commercial”
§ Projecticization of reform initiatives,
interventions (with fund agencies)
§ “Bottomlining” everything
§ External barriers
§ Non-coequal State agency
“overreach”
§ Private, for-profit interests
DISCUSSION
THANK YOU!