A look into CHED Memo No. 20-2013: The end of a language?

“The fundamental purpose of higher education, therefore, is not only to develop graduates in a particular field, but also well-rounded individuals who appreciate knowledge in a general sense, are open-minded because of it, secure in their identities as individuals and as Filipinos, and cognizant of their role in life of the nation and the larger community.”

These are among the specific goals of the Commission on Higher Education in crafting the New General Education Program for college. But are their actions really aligned with their goal of ‘securing identities as individuals and as Filipinos’ when they decided to remove the Filipino language in the new curriculum?

No need for Filipino subjects?

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum (CMO) No. 20, series of 2013 has raised more than a few eyebrows among professors of Filipino and organizations, including Tanggol Wika and Pambansang Samahan ng Linggwistika at Literaturang Pilipino (PSLLF), as there are no Filipino subjects included in the proposed New General Education Curriculum (GEC) for college.

The new GEC is comprised of 24 core courses, namely Philippine History, Purposive Communication, Art Appreciation, The Contemporary World, Mathematics in the Modern World, Science, Technology and Society, and Ethics. Included also are the nine elective subjects and a course on Rizal, as mandated by law.

CHED rationalized the memorandum content by stating that Filipino subjects are not uniquely displaced, as other courses such as General Psychology and Basic Microeconomics will also be transferred to the junior and senior high school in pursuit of reducing the GE courses into 36 units.

In reply to the protests by Filipino professors and civil groups, CHED pointed out that they did not deny the capacity of Filipino to be used in intellectual discourses. In the memorandum, it is stated that the new GEC may be taught in Filipino and English, leaving the choice of medium of instruction to the colleges and universities.

CHED also approved public consultations with the GE technical panel on whether to require nine units of GEC to be taught in Filipino. CHED also stated that Purposive Communication could be taught in Filipino if the institution decides to do so.

In its press statement last July 23, CHED laid out the reasons as to why the old GEC must be overhauled. They emphasized that the old GEC contains courses that will be taught in the new K-12 curriculum, thus it would be unfair for the students to take them again in college. Secondly, the new GEC will include more liberalized courses as the old GEC contains a lot of disciplinal courses such as General Psychology.

Pa-consuelo de bobo

Dr. David San Juan, a professor from the Filipino Department, along with Filipino educators and groups, do not seem to agree with CHED when they say Filipino is not entirely removed from the curriculum as the new GEC ‘could be entirely taught in Filipino or English.’

San Juan regards this statement as a sort of “pa-consuelo de bobo.”

“Using Filipino as a medium of instruction is different from teaching Filipino as a subject/discipline. Hence, even if Filipino is used as medium of instruction for all subjects in the new GEC, the fact remains that Filipino as a subject/discipline has been abolished in college,” says Dr. David San Juan.

San Juan, along with other protesters who believe that the Filipino is being marginalized, states that colleges and universities will still end up using English as the medium of instruction as it becomes the default language of many institutions.

According to San Juan, CHED failed to consult Filipino professors and conduct further studies regarding the matter. Around 100 schools and organizations such as Alyansa ng Mga Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang Filipino have come together to discuss the issue, stating that they were never consulted before the memorandum was published.

“CHED claims to have conducted massive consultations then, but they are yet to publish the names and affiliations of the people and institutions/organizations that they say they have consulted,” he shares.

San Juan points out that even big linguistic organizations such as the PSLLF were never consulted. “If we were consulted, there will be no new GEC without Filipino subjects,” he shares.

No to the scrapping of Filipino

San Juan authored the position paper of PSLLF, an online petition to include units of Filipino subjects in the new curriculum addressed to Dr. Patricia Licuanan, Chairperson of Commission on Higher Education.

He counter-argued CHED’s reasoning on crafting the new curriculum particularly on the obliteration of some courses, specifically Filipino subjects, on the basis of their purported repetitive nature in the GE.

“Bakit buburahin ang Filipino kung hindi rin naman binura sa kolehiyo ang mga asignaturang may counterpart sa senior high school?” he shares in accordance to the comparative analysis he made between highschool and college curricula.

San Juan also explains that the Filipino subjects taught in high school are different from the tertiary level. “Filipino subjects will be relegated to the highly-technicalized senior high school level, where subjects in Grade 12 are track-based and hence very different from what is taught and how courses are taught in the old GEC.”

In order to prove that Filipino in college will be different from what will be taught in the high school level, the PSLLF proposes the following subjects as possible choices for the said mandatory core courses: Wikang Filipino Bilang Wikang Intelektwal sa Agham Panlipunan, Humanidades, Agham, at Teknolohiya; Panitikan at Lipunan; Mga Wika at Kultura ng Pilipinas; at Mga Babasahin sa Araling Pilipinas (Philippine Studies).

In the petition letter, San Juan further argues that even in other counties such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and even in United States, studying the national language is mandated for college students. Among the universities that require a course in National Language are Yale University, Harvard University, and Stanford University.

San Juan also emphasizes that the memo is unconstitutional, as the memo violates Article XIV, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, which says that “The Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.”

Scrap K-12

“We have two more years before the new GEC kicks in, and yet schools are yet to have final preparations for what the CHED has mandated. The new GEC will self-destruct in a few years’ time,” shares San Juan.

San Juan believes that budget allocated in the implementation of the K-12 should just be spent in furnishing and improving the current educational system of the country, as the government must first solve the current fundamental problems of the educational system such as the shortage of classrooms and teachers, before resorting to overhauling the whole system.

He also mentions the immediate impacts of the implementation of K-12, specifically in Filipino educators and the CHED’s lack of definite solutions to the imminent retrenchment of thousands of educators. “As per our projections, more than 10,000 full-time Filipino instructors, lecturers, [and] professors and around 20,000 part-time Filipino instructors, lecturers, [and] professors will be fired or have their teaching loads and incomes reduced.”

Cultural genocide

National Artist Bienvenido Lumbera is one with the Filipino professors in arguing that a subject in Filipino is more than just about grammar and linguistics as it also involves cultural studies that are needed to propagate national identity and social maturity. “Ang wika ay palatandaan ng identidad ng isang bayan… ang nag-uugnay sa estudyante sa kaniyang pamilya, komunidad na kaniyang pinanggalingan, sa kahapon ng bayan,” he shares.

Political Science professor Dr. Antonio Contreras also agrees that at least a three unit course in Filipino must be included in the core courses. “Otherwise, globalization will consume our culture. Pwede kong ituro ang Math or Science in Filipino, pero hindi naman ito tungkol sa kultura at lingguwah,” he opines.

Other protests groups such as League of Filipino Students have also expressed their disapproval on the CHED memorandum.

In his online petition, San Juan also emphasized the importance of Filipino in the imminent union of ASEAN countries. “Our language and culture will be our greatest contribution to the ASEAN integration.”

Students’ say

But if college students are to be asked about their opinion on the issue, which side would they choose?

Sofia, along with the other Philippine Mass Media majors, explains why Filipino should still be part of the General Education in college. She shares, “Ang mga tinuturo sa highschool ay paghahanda para sa kolehiyo. Kung tatanggalin na yung Filipino, para saan pa yung mga inaral nilang kasanayan?”

Carlos Adorable (I, AB-ISE), says that with the removal of Filipino, it also removes a part of our identity and that it looks as if we’re being degraded as a Filipino. He said that “Filipino is a part of our culture and it is what identifies us as a Filipino or ‘Pinoy.’”

There are some who think that it’s the perfect time for it to be eliminated. Mark Locsin (I, AB-ISE), has pointed out that the world today is evolving. He shares, “The ASEAN Integration is coming up, Filipino will become more and more passé and less influential in terms of the competition of jobs and business-wise in an ever-growing Southeast Asian region.”

There are those who approve with a few conditions. Justine Sales (I, AB-ISE), is okay with the idea of teaching certain subjects in Filipino. “It’s fine as long the language used is appropriate for a particular subject.” However, if Filipino will remain part of the curriculum, Alyssa Alcain (I, AB-ISE) thinks that there should be more lessons added instead. “It’s not the brightest idea to completely remove the Filipino subject in the curriculum. It would be better to not only focus on the basics, but to expand it.”

Final analysis

CHED states that it will release its final decision sometime in August. They are still gathering the position papers of various stakeholders, and have set July 31 as the deadline for the submission of these. The debate on whether to include the national language in the new GEC will remain heated until the proposed curriculum is up for its final revision. But as much as the Filipino-language advocates national cause and identity, the fate of the Filipino language still lies in the hands of CHED.