Current Issues Concerns in Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

• MTB-MLE (Mother Tongue–Based Multilingual Education) is supported by strong evidence, but the main problem is not the approach itself—it’s how it is implemented in Philippine schools.
• Policy exists, but implementation gaps are common, including:
  • Lack of monitoring tools and insufficient integration into key school systems (e.g., KRA/RPMS), plus insufficient operational support.
  • Uneven implementation across schools, often depending on principal/teacher advocates and local capacity.
  • Limited or late teacher training, especially for newer K–3 teachers and school heads.
• MTB-MLE is designed to begin with learners’ L1 (mother tongue/local language) and then add other languages gradually, aiming for improved early literacy and smoother later transitions.
• Learning outcomes depend on “how much” and “how long” L1 is used, not only on the idea that L1 is used up to Grade 3.
• Literacy and additional language learning become more effective when approaches are asset-based, treating L1 as a resource rather than “interference.”
• Assessment practices like PISA, TIMSS, and similar tests may disadvantage multilingual learners because test constructs and the language-of-testing often rely on monolingual assumptions.

---

Methodology / approach described (operational principles)

A. What MTB-MLE is (core definition and intent)

Defined by K–12 law and related DepEd orders as:

• Effective use of more than two languages in teaching and learning
• Beginning with the language(s) learners are most familiar with (L1)
• Then introducing other languages (e.g., Filipino/English) progressively

B. Implementation requirements (what schools/communities need)

Language and literacy resources

• Storybooks/big books/small books in the local mother tongue
• Reading materials aligned with frequent sounds and age-appropriate literacy entry points

Language reference materials

• Spelling guide/orthography
• Dictionary/glossary
• Grammar guide

Qualified language teaching capacity

• Teachers who can teach/communicate in the relevant local language
• Training not only for teachers, but also for school heads and supervisors

Language mapping

• Collect and verify learners’ actual L1s (often via LIS/student information systems)
• Use mapping results to guide:
  • materials production
  • teacher deployment
• Address cases where parents may misreport L1 (e.g., writing English/Filipino instead)

C. Literacy instruction model examples (classroom-level practices)

• Reading instruction begins with local sounds, not generic alphabet-only sequences:
  • Identify most frequently used sounds in the local language
  • Build materials around those sounds
  • Develop big books per sound (and/or reading primers based on sound frequency)
• Emphasize culturally appropriate, locally produced storybooks
  • Big book-making is highlighted as contextual and community-linked
• Use reading centers and wide exposure
  • Learners access level readers and storybooks
  • Schools expect a certain number of books read across the school year (not always achieved)

---

Key instructional and program shifts described

1. From monolingual/dominant-language literacy to literature-based multilingual literacy

• Replace earlier approaches focused heavily on a dominant language with:
  • Literature-based literacy using big books and locally relevant stories/materials

2. From “L1 as interference” to “L1 as resource”

• Earlier framing:
  • L1 was treated as a cause of difficulty when teaching L2 (English/Filipino)
• MTB-MLE reframing:
  • L1 is a resource and part of learners’ funds of knowledge
  • Supports multilingual competence and more pluralistic language attitudes

3. Multilingual mindset / asset-based error handling

• Language mixing is reframed as:
  • Approximation (a developmental strategy), not only “wrong/error”
• Teachers are encouraged to:
  • recognize learners’ competence across languages
  • build from what learners can do in L1 toward target forms in L2

4. Strategies related to translanguaging

• Learners may use multiple language resources:
  • discuss topics with peers using available languages
  • produce written outputs using L1 and/or translate between languages depending on opportunities/materials
• Teachers position themselves as learners too:
  • facilitate learning across languages rather than only delivering instruction in one language

---

Key policy and system issues mentioned (implementation barriers)

• Not embedded into performance/monitoring structures
  • Example claim: MTB-MLE not reflected sufficiently in KRA/RPMS and lacking monitoring tools
• Uneven capacity and support
  • Some schools/divisions have strong support; others do not
• Teacher training gaps
  • Many teachers report no formal MTB-MLE training, especially newer teachers
• Materials limitations
  • Materials may not match dialect/variety differences (e.g., modules in a different dialect than the local L1)
  • Lack of localized orthography/materials for some languages
• Language transition planning not fully operationalized
  • Mother tongue to Filipino/English transition may exist in policy but is not consistently applied
• Misconceptions and stakeholder discomfort
  • Some parents/stakeholders prefer English/Filipino and feel uncomfortable with mother tongue use
• Language mapping problems
  • Mapping may be inadequate or delayed, affecting deployment of language-specific materials and teachers

---

Evidence and outcomes cited (high-level)

• MTB-MLE supports early reading and later L2 learning compared to starting literacy mainly through L2.
• A reported program example (ABC/Basa-related intervention) indicates:
  • Grade 2 learners improved in multiple subtests after intervention
  • Evidence of transfer across languages, including book print knowledge and phonological awareness
  • Learners may remain weaker in vocabulary/grammar transfer and in English comprehension for later grades
• CPLM/PISA/TIMSS-like concerns
  • English-medium test outcomes are interpreted as reflecting language-of-testing disadvantages, not only learner ability

---

Recommendations and “what should be done” (as expressed)

• Strengthen implementation support, including:
  • funding for materials and localized production
  • incentives aligned with MTB-MLE practices
  • monitoring/reporting mechanisms (e.g., scorecards)
• Expand and target training, especially for:
  • school heads
  • supervisors
  • ongoing teacher capacity building (not just initial orientation)
• Improve transition readiness
  • prepare learners for Grade 4 English-medium content (math/science) with scaffolded support and earlier oral language development
  • revisit the K–3 English curriculum to ensure appropriate L2 development
• Use language-appropriate assessment thinking
  • evaluate learning with consideration of multilingual competencies and context
  • avoid monolingual-only test constructs
• Increase parental and community involvement
  • encourage home reading routines, including support during and after the pandemic
• Support language revitalization and inclusivity
  • ensure minoritized languages are not ignored due to low popularity
  • include more heritage/language varieties and address dying languages/scripts where feasible

---

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

Speakers (people)

• Moderator: Dr. Joram (appears as “sir joram”; full name not provided in subtitles)
• Resource speaker: Dr. Maria Mercedes Arzedon (also referenced as Dr. Maria Mercedes-Arzedon / Dr. Maria Mercedez Arzedon)
• Introducer / presenter: Miss Cherry Ann M. Luna, PhD (UP doctoral student; faculty, Barinduke State College)
• Closing remarks / program lead speaker: Dr. Rachel B. Lintao (PhD program lead)
• Closing institutional role: Dr. Michael Anthony C. Vasco (Dean, U.S.T. Graduate School; referenced in certificate text)
• Faculty/program participant (during Q&A / facilitation): Mr. Leroy Christian Rubio (PhD-ELS program faculty; southern Mindanao/state-university affiliation referenced)
• Additional speakers mentioned during Q&A/comments:
  • Mrs. Nikki Shine Namiya (comment about dialect mismatch in modules)
  • Isabella Herrerson Valdes (question about choosing local languages based on popularity vs minoritized languages)
  • Ethel Joy Manina (question about suspension of MTB-MLE)
  • Sir King Armand Kalingasan (question about multilingual learners in Cotabato where lingua franca is Tagalog)
  • Other audience members acknowledged but not clearly identified in subtitles

Sources and organizations referenced (contextual)

• LSP (speaker’s organization/role referenced; acronym full form not provided)
• DepEd (Department of Education)
• K–12 Law
• DepEd Orders (e.g., “Order 21,” “Order 74,” “Order 55”; exact titles not provided)
• UNESCO Bangkok
• UNICEF
• SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics)
• NGOs: Save the Children, VSO/related NGOs referenced (other NGO names appear but are unclear due to subtitle errors)
• Higher education/training bodies: UP Open University, CHED, and various HEIs
• Assessment systems: PISA, TIMSS, EGRA/Education assessments, MELB-like references (subtitles contain unclear abbreviations, but PISA/TIMSS are explicit)
• Researchers/theorists/books referenced:
  • James Cummins (2001)
  • Thomas/Thomas & Collier
  • Ofelia García (translanguaging)
  • Additional names referenced but sometimes unclear due to subtitle errors
• Historical references: J. Aguilar/Jose Aguilar, UNESCO publications, community school/vernacular education, Basel readers, and other multilingual education history