English as a Medium of

Instruction in Philippine
Education: A History

By Louise Anne P. Porciuncula

MA English Studies: Language

1997-39181

Submitted to:

Dr. Frank Flores

English 204

October 6, 2011
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 2 of 10

ENGLISH AS A MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION

IN PHILIPPINE EDUCATION:
A HISTORY

For many Filipinos, there are few things today that are more important than formal
schooling. I often hear parents say that the best thing they could ever give to their children is a
good education. My grandparents made sure that all of their ten children, including my father,
acquired a Bachelors degree. In turn, my father worked abroad to make sure that me and my
brother and sister finished college. Indeed, education in the Philippines is a prized possession,
viewed as a ticket to a stable job, a comfortable lifestyle, and a bright future.

Consequently, being a successful student also means being proficient in the languages or
mediums of instruction used in school. And as far as I know, English is one of them, alongside
Filipino and other major local languages. Hence, in this paper, I will discuss the history of
English as a medium of instruction in Philippine education. What’s more, I will also present
debates pertaining to the use of the language in Filipino schools. Moreover, I will be sharing my
own personal conclusions and reflections about the matter.

I. English in Philippine Education: Past to Present

Based on my research, the history of languages used in Philippine education can be

roughly divided into four stages. Notably, each stage corresponds to the language policy being
implemented at the time, namely: English Language Policy, Revised Philippine Education
Program, Bilingual Education Policy, and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education.

A. The English Language Policy (1900-1957)

On April 7, 1900, President William McKinley of the United States issued a Letter of
Instruction, which declared that English would be the medium of instruction at all levels of
the public educational system in the Philippines (Bernardo, 2009, p.29). This took place after
the Spanish-American War, after Spain surrendered the Philippines, as well as Cuba, Puerto
Rico, and Guam to the United States (Cushner, 1989, p.238).
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 3 of 10

Prior to the declaration, the English language had already arrived at the Philippine
islands, during the war between Spain and the US. According to Gonzales and Alberca
(1978), from 1898 to 1901, over 70,000 American soldiers came under the supervision of
Admiral John Dewey. Meanwhile, on August 21, 1901, the USS Thomas arrived, carrying
540 teachers who were assigned to teach in public schools set up by the civilian government
(p.1). Later, these teachers were called “Thomasites” after the army ship that they arrived in.

With the coming of the Americans, English replaced Spanish as the language of
instruction in schools (Oliveros, et. al., p.160). However, for many years, until around the
late 1960s, Spanish was still taught as a language in colleges and universities.

The declaration of English as medium of instruction is reported to be based on

practical considerations. Bernardo (2009) writes that during those times, there were no
teachers and teaching materials in the Philippine languages. He also cites Martin (1999),
who reports that English was considered then as the unifying language that could bring
together the Filipinos from various regions, who used different languages and dialects (p.29).

For the first half of the 20th century, English was the medium of instruction in
Philippine schools. From 1903 onwards, the brightest students, called “pensionados,” were
even sent to the US to study in colleges and universities (Oliveros, et. al., p.160). When the
country became a self-governing commonwealth in 1935, and up to the time it gained full
independence in 1946, English was the language used in Philippine education.

However, not everyone was happy with the English language policy. Bernardo
(2009) states that ever since it was declared, “the policy has been criticized, upheld,
denounced, sustained, eventually modified, and is still being debated at all levels of
educational policy making” (p.29).

Indeed, even early on, the policy has been criticized, both by American and Filipino
scholars, who said that Filipino students had learning difficulties associated with using
English as the language of instruction (Bernardo, 2009, p.30). After conducting an
assessment of public education in the country, Najeeb Mitry Saleeby (1924) suggested that
together with English, three regional languages should be used in education at the elementary
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 4 of 10

level. Meanwhile, based on a longitudinal experiment using Hiligaynon as the medium of

instruction in Iloilo grade schools, Jose Aguilar (1967) reported that Filipino students leaned
more successfully when they are taught in their native tongues (in Bernardo, 2009, p.30).

Aside from these studies, there were other factors that contributed to the “decline” of
English in Philippine Education. In 1953, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization or UNESCO proclaimed that there was a need to begin schooling
students in their 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” (Bernardo, 2009, p.31). Meanwhile, in 1950, Clifford Prator suggested the idea
of teaching English as a second language (p.31). Based on all of these recommendations, a
new policy regarding the medium of instruction to be used in schools was conceived.

B. The Revised Philippine Education Program (1957-1974)

In 1957, the Bureau of Public Schools introduced the Revised Philippine Education
Program, which stated that for the first two grades of elementary school, students should be
taught in the vernacular (Bernardo, 2009, p.31). And then, from the third grade up to college,
there would be “a shift to English as medium of instruction, with the vernacular as an
‘auxiliary medium’ of instruction in Grades 3 and 4, and Filipino (the national language) as
an auxiliary medium in Grades 5 and 6” (p.31).

Though the new program introduced the use of the vernacular and Filipino, English
was still clearly the dominant language of instruction. Eventually, during the rise of the
nationalist movement and anti-imperialist sentiments in the late 1960s, English came under
much criticism once more (Bernardo, 2009, p.31). Nationalist scholars argued that the use of
English helped to perpetuate a “colonial / imperialist agenda” that educated Filipinos “in
ways that Americans wanted them to think, not in ways that were good for Filipinos” (p.31).
It was not long before a new policy was drawn up by the Philippine government.

C. The Bilingual Education Policy (1974-Present)

English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 5 of 10

In 1974, the Department of Education introduced the Bilingual Education Policy

(BEP), which mandated the use of both English and Pilipino as mediums of instruction in
elementary and high school (Bernardo, 2009, p.32). In this new policy, the curriculum was
divided into two major domains: the English domain, which covers English communication
arts, mathematics, and science; and the Pilipino domain, which covers all other subjects,
including Pilipino communication arts, social studies, and history (p.32).

In 1987, the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) restated the same
provisions as the BEP, plus a recasting of the roles of the two languages: Filipino was to be
“the language of literacy and of scholarly discourse,” and English was to be maintained as
“the international language and the non-exclusive language of science and technology”
(Bernardo, 2009, p.32).

However, despite the recasting of roles, it can be noted that until today English is
used in “scholarly discourse,” and even in informal discourse, for that matter. Up to this day,
I believe that the BEP is still being implemented in many schools all over the country.
Nevertheless, in recent years, another new policy has been proposed.

D. Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (2009-Present)

On July 14, 2009, the Department of Education (DepEd) issued Order No. 74, which
institutionalized Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education or MLE (Education For All:
UNESCO Bangkok website, 2009). The new policy was based on earlier studies that
indicated the effectiveness of using the mother tongue in education. It was also based on the
success of the Lubuagan First Language Experiment, which was conducted by the Summer
Institute of Linguistics in close collaboration with the DepEd in 1998 at Lubuagan, Kalinga
(Martin, 2008). The experiment revealed that students taught in their native tongue
“performed much better in Math, Science, English, and Filipino achievement tests” (para.3).

Because of the success of the experiment, the Lubuagan community decided to adopt
the use of their first language as the norm in education (Martin, 2008). Today, MLE is yet to
be implemented in the rest of the country, but the DepEd will continue training teachers
under the new MLE Framework (Education For All: UNESCO Bangkok website, 2009).
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 6 of 10

II. Debates on the Role of English in Philippine Education

Over the years, the role of English in Philippine schools has been debated among
educators and policy-makers. In his paper entitled, “English in Philippine Education: Solution or
Problem?” Bernardo (2009) presented two opposing sets of arguments: one for the exclusive
and / or intensified use of English, and the other against its use in Philippine education (p.32).

A. Arguments for the Exclusive and / or Intensified Use of English

According to Bernardo (2009), there are three themes that argue for the exclusive
and / or intensified use of English in Philippine education: “(a) for social integration and / or
control; (b) pragmatic difficulties in shifting away from English; and (c) usefulness of
English in the economic and intellectual domains” (p.33).

English for social integration and / or control. As previously mentioned, “the main
factor for the American colonial government’s decision to use English as the medium of
instruction was that it would serve as a means of unifying the ethnolinguistically diverse
Filipino people” (Bernardo, 2009, p.33). However, many scholars have argued that this has
backfired against the Filipinos, claiming that “the use of English has developed in Filipinos a
national identity that is defined in the terms of the agenda of the American colonizers” (p.33)

Pragmatic difficulties in shifting away from English. During the American colonial
period, the use of English was deemed practical for several reasons: the American teachers
cannot teach using the local languages; there was a lack of local teachers who could teach
using the local languages; and there were no textbooks and other materials in the local
languages (Bernardo, 2009, p.33). Today, meanwhile, the scenario is a bit more complicated.
These days, the advancement of certain domains [e.g. the sciences, computer technology] is
happening so fast, that the task of translating them into the local languages has become
extremely hard to manage (p.34).
Usefulness of English in the economic and intellectual domains. Without a doubt, the
world today is more “globalized” than ever, with “English as a medium for intellectual
pursuits, for international communication, [and] for economic advancement, especially in the
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 7 of 10

current globalizing world environment” (Bernardo, 2009, p.34). Hence, it follows that
Philippine schools should still aim for students to be proficient in English, since it is widely
used in today’s globally competitive environment.

B. Arguments Against the Use of English

In contrast, Bernardo (2009) also discusses arguments against the use of English in
Philippine education: “(a) the colonizing and oppressive power of English; and (b) the
harmful effects of using English in the learning of the typical Filipino student” (p.33).

The colonizing and oppressive power of English. According to Bernardo (2000),

some scholars insist that the continued use of English was a “sign of subservience” to the
United States, and that “true liberation of the Filipino people from their colonial /
postcolonial ties can begin only when the use of English in formal education and in many of
the controlling domains is rejected” (p.35).

The harmful effects of using English in the learning of the typical Filipino student.
Bernardo (2009) also states that research studies in many parts of the world conclude that
“learning and instruction in formal education should be in one’s native tongue” (p.36). In
addition, he presents several other findings of these studies, as follows:

(a) Students learn better in their mother tongue;

(b) Students do not learn as well in English and that, in some cases, they do
not learn at all;

(c) Using English as the medium of instruction in some learning areas

prevents students from learning as much as they could (compared to
mother tongue instruction), and that sometimes specific obstacles to
learning are associated with English-language difficulties; and
(d) Those who benefit most from education in the English language are those
with good levels of proficiency in English to start with and / or those who
grow up in environments that abound with English language inputs,
materials, and resources (p.36).
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 8 of 10

III.Conclusions & Reflections

In the first part of this paper, I presented the changes that have transpired over the years,
with regard to the use of English as the mode of instruction in Philippine education. I cannot
help but notice that, in terms of language policy, English has gradually been “diminishing,” from
“one hundred percent” use during the American colonization period, to the Bilingual Education
Policy (BEP) stage when English and Filipino had more or less “equal” status, and to the present
time, when the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE) program called for the use
of the mother tongue in formal education.

On a personal note, however, I have also been noticing that the use of English both in the
local and international domains is “far from diminishing.” These days, it is not unusual to hear
Filipino children talking in English, teenagers inserting English expressions in conversations,
and professionals carrying out their daily tasks in the English language. Hence, while I
understand the reasons and sentiments that argue against the use of English in Philippine
education, I don’t think we should stop using it altogether, given that it has become a part of the
typical Filipino’s linguistic “repertoire.”

In the second part of the paper, I presented the arguments for and against the use of
English in Philippine schools. I decided to do this because I personally wanted to look at both
sides of the matter. By doing so I think I can arrive at an objective view of the issue, and at the
same time analyze it based on my own experience, as well.

When I was about nine years old, my family lived in Brunei, where my siblings and I
enrolled in an international school. I was the only Filipino girl in class, and my students came
from other parts of the world, including Singapore, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Nigeria,
Australia, and more. My teacher was a British woman named Ms. Jenkins. Naturally, I had to
use English in speaking to my classmates; we all did, since it was the only language we all
shared. In a few weeks, I was able to understand my teacher’s heavily accented British English,
and converse with my new friends with confidence.
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 9 of 10

Looking back, I think if I hadn’t learned English during my early elementary school years
in the Philippines, I would have had a miserable time during those first few weeks in the
international school. At a time when I was going through a cultural transition, my knowledge of
English really came in handy, and I was able to adapt well to living in Brunei. Just the same,
when I returned to the Philippines to finish high school, my ability to use Tagalog helped me to
once again adapt, and not be left behind in the subjects where Filipino was used, since at that
time the school was following the Bilingual Education Policy.

My point is, in my own experience, I have come to believe that the more languages a
person knows, the better he or she can adapt to both local and international environments. And
in a world such as today, where I can email a friend in Japan at the press of a button, or talk to a
Taiwanese friend over Skype (a video call Internet application), the need for an international
language is obvious, and English fulfils that need.

As for the recently introduced Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MLE)

program, I fully support its mandate to promote the use of local languages in schools all over the
country. Nevertheless, I also think that we should keep on using English as well, since it plays
an active role in communication and development all over the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernardo, Allan B.I. (2009). “English in Philippine Education: Solution or Problem?” in

Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives (Edited by Ma. Lourdes S.
Bautista and Kingsley Bolton). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
English as a Medium of Instruction in Philippine Education: A History Page 10 of 10

Cushner, Nicolas P. (1989). “Philippines.” Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia (Volume 15). New
York: Lexicon Publications, Inc.

Gonzales, Andrew & Wilfredo Alberca. (1978). Philippine English of the Mass Media. Manila,
Philippines: Research Council, De La Salle University.

Martin, Isabel Pefianco. (2008). “Mother Tongue Education is Way to Go.” Philippine Daily
Inquirer Online. Retrieved September 7, 2011 from http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireopi
nion/columns/view/20081101-169620/M

Oliveros, Reynaldo, Ma. Concepcion M. Galvez, and Yolanda R. Estrella. (2004). Philippine
History and Government. Manila: IBON Foundation, Inc.

(author not indicated). (2009). “The Philippines Institutionalizes Mother Tongue-Based

Multilingual Education.” Education For All: UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved September
7, 2011 from http://www.unescobkk.org/education/efa/efanews/news-details/article/the-
philippines-institutionalizes-mother-tongue-based-multilingual-education/