Organized by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS), International Cooperation Cambodia (ICC) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, a Workshop on Bilingual Education was held at the Imperial Garden Villa and Hotel, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on Nov. 17-18, 2011.

Dr. Rosalina J. Villaneza

Dr. Rosalina J. Villaneza, MTB MLE Focal Person and National Coordinator and Head of the Philippines National English Proficiency Program, Office of the Undersecretary for Programs and Projects, Department of Education, was one of the workshop presenters. She spoke on “The Philippine Model of Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education.“

Here’s the FINAL REPORT: Cambodia Workshop on Bilingual Education FINAL Eng with Photos Dec 22 pdf.

For the folks, especially those interested in a more fact-filled dialog on the K+12 basic education cycle, the following world data on education may prove extremely useful. Please watch out for the next post showing how some of the participating countries from the list below performed in the TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report and the TIMSS 2007 International Science Report. [The latest TIMSS 2011 International Reports are "forthcoming" according to TIMMS 2011.]. It is interesting to note that Singapore [a country whose basic education cycle consists of pre-school/kindergarten, 6 years of elementary school plus a choice of 4 or 5  or 6 years of secondary school] was among the top 3 performers for both 4th graders (Grade 4 in the Philippines) and 8th graders (2nd year high school in the Philippines), outperforming some countries, including the United States. with a basic education cycle of K+12.

Here’s what we found out about Singapore’s educational system in an earlier post here:

Pre-School

Singapore has 3 years of pre-school: nursery, kindergarten 1 and kindergarten 2. “Nurturing Early Learners: A Framework For A Kindergarten Curriculum in Singapore” details a comprehensive pre-school curricular formula which former Deputy Education Minister Abraham I. Felipe describes in “Length of Education Cycle and the ‘Quality’ of Education” as potentially a significant difference-maker that helps propel Singapore students to perform at the top of the heap in TIMSS previous tests.  It is interesting to note that one of the 8 desired outcomes of pre-school education is the child’s ability “to listen and speak with understanding” which fosters in the child the disposition and skill “to communicate effectively in English and a mother tongue language” (emphasis supplied).

m

Primary Education

Singapore’s Primary Education consists of a compulsary 4-year foundation stage from Primary 1 to 4 plus a 2-year orientation stage from Primary 5 to 6. The overall aim of primary education is to give students a good grasp of English language, Mother Tongue and Mathematics. In “Primary School Education: Preparing Your Child For Tomorrow“, Singapore aims to develop the child’s language skills in both English and his mother tongue. This Ministry of Education document demands: “Your child will learn English as a first language in primary school. English is the lingua franca of international business, science and technology. The ability to write and speak English well therefore remains an essential skill to cultivate in our young. Your child will learn his Mother Tongue Language (Chinese Language, Malay Language or Tamil Language) as a second language… enabling them to connect and tap into opportunities in the global environment.”

m

Secondary Education

Secondary Education in Singapore places students in the Special, Express, Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) course according to how they perform at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). In addition to these traditional routes and also depending on the student’s performance on the PSLE,he has other options such as the (a) Integrated Program that combines Secondary and JC education [4 to 6 years], (b) Specialized Program to develop the student’s talents in specific areas [4 to 6 years], (c) Privately-funded School programs that determine their own curriculum and provide more options for Singapore students [4 to 6 years], or the (d) Special Education School programs that provide EITHER mainstream curriculum with programs catering to the student’s special needs OR customized special education curriculum [4 to 6 years]. The different curricular emphases are designed to match students’ learning abilities and interests. The traditional secondary education could either be 4 or 5 years. Whether a student is in the Normal Course Curriculum, Special/Express Courses Curriculum, or other programs in secondary school, he is served, in addition to knowledge skills and skills, a trifold menu of (a)the humanities and the arts, (b) mathematics and sciences, and (c) languages which include English, the mother tongue and, optionally a third language (L3). MOE’s “Secondary School Education” indicates that the courses — whether it be the (a) Express Course [4 years], (b) Normal (Academic) Course [5 years], (c) Normal (Technical) Course [4 years], or (d) Vocational Course [1 to 4 years] — include English and the Mother Tongue as language subjects.

Hereunder is the World Data on Education Seventh edition 2010/2011. Under preparation: education profiles for the countries without bullets in the list below will be added as they become available.

As of Jan. 22, 2012, here are the final updates from 170+ Talaytayan MLE on the forthcoming 2nd Philippine Conference-Workshop on MTBMLE in Iloilo City on Feb. 16, 17, 18, 2012:

The Conference will feature gains and prospects of MTBMLE in the Philippines. It will demonstrate concretely how MTBMLE can be incorporated in the new K-12 curriculum and teacher education curriculum

KEY SPEAKERS/PRESENTORS:

• Dr. Kimmo Kosonen
• Dr. Catherine Young
• Cong. Magtanggol Gunigundo
• Bro. Armin Luistro
• Dr. Patricia Licuanan
• Dr. Ricardo Ma. Nolasco
• Dr. Paraluman Giron
• Dr. Lydia Liwanag
• Dr. Isabel Martin
• Dr. Hope Yu
• Dr. Purita Bilbao
• Dr. Rowena Guevara
• Atty. Lino Faelnar
• Dr. Francisco Datar, and
• Dr. Voltaire Oyzon 

KEY TOPICS FOR PLENARY AND SEMINAR-WORKSHOPS:

• MTBMLE and EFA 2015
• MTBMLE and K-12
• Sounds and Letters of Philippine Languages
• Developing L1 Pre-Primer and Primer and L2 Transition Primer
• An MTBMLE-Adapted Kinder Curriculum with a Thematic Approach: A Public School Setting
• MTBMLE Curriculum Guide in all Subject Areas
• Materials Development in MTBMLE
• MTBMLE Local and International Policies
• Developing Context-Embedded Assessments
• Teaching Math using Manipulatives & Indigenized Materials
• Teaching Demonstrations: Communicative Activity-Based Learning Acquisition; Primer Lessons, Experience Story; Shared Reading
• Incorporating MTBMLE in Pre-Service Curriculum

PAPER PRESENTATIONS – Local and international scholars from universities and development organizations will present their studies on distinct features of Philippine languages, orthography making, emergent literacy, MTBMLE programs here and abroad, World Englishes, teaching English through the mother tongue, deaf education, use of media in MTBMLE, and so forth

BOOTHS DISPLAY OF REGIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS –We will designate a booth for every region for display of big/small books, busy posters, primer lessons, lesson plans, assessment tools and other instructional materials.

REGISTRATION FEE: 

• With lodging -P4,500
• Without lodging – P3,500
• The registration fee will cover conference kit and certificate; lodging for February 16 and 17; complete meals and snacks for February 16 and 17; breakfast, morning snacks and lunch for February 18. Distribution of conference kit will start on February 15, 2012 at 3:00pm at Punta Villa Resort (should you check in earlier, the hotel charges P200 per night).
• Payments may be deposited to Banco de Oro (BDO).
• Account name: 170+ Talaytayan MLE Inc.
• CA# 0470506288
• Please send the scanned deposit slip to mlephilippines@gmail.com or fax (02-9269887). For more information please call (63-2)981-8500 local 2294 or +639163944870 (Lucy Cruz).
• Download registration form, CHED Memo, DepEd advisory from www.mlephilippines.org

First session starts 9:00 am, February 16. Program will last until 12:00 noon of February 18. 

Preciosa S. Soliven

In her column, A Point of Awareness, Ms. Preciosa S. Soliven surprises us with a blanket generalization that “uneducated poor parents have no idea what… a balanced, integrated development” for their children means. In fact, most Filipino parents who, traditionally, are intent on living their lives through their children, already have, in varying levels of intensity, sophistication and/or commitment, some “integrated” plans of development which sometimes surpass their ability to carry them out. Oh, some succeed, however, most come out a bit disenchanted, albeit, feeling a certain degree of accomplishment for even trying.

“As early as the age of three,” Ms. Soliven writes, “given a choice of playing with a toy tea set or setting the family table, the child will prefer the latter.” Well, a large number of Filipino children don’t even have what would normally be considered three decent square meals a day, so the option of playing with a toy tea set is far-fetched, if not an altogether foreign concept, and arguably a poor option. Besides, the average Filipino child is typically beset with varying levels of malnutrition so you can’t blame the child if he/she opts for setting the family table as that is, realistically, a prelude to a much-needed meal! Please read on…

Humanizing the educational system of K to 12
for the sustainable dev’t of children

Parental Attitudes That Help Children Grow Up Effectively

There is a fine distinction between helping your child constructively and doing so much for her that she comes to rely on you completely. When your toddler comes to you with a problem, judge whether it is really impossible for the child to cope with it, for example, if a child came crying out to you with a tightly fitted lead, it would be better to weigh between helping the child to unscrew a tight lead and giving  a little bit of instructions  so that she is empowered to manage on her own.

It is fine to help a child in situations where she could not possibly cope and it is good to show her how things are done-explaining in simple way exactly what is happening. But let your child use you like a tool that does everything for her even when she can manage some of the tasks herself is unwise because it will increase her dependency on you and encourage clinging.   This will eventually harm the child’s self esteem.

Besides, most children tend to exhaust all possibilities offered by their home environment by the time they are three and they yearn to see new faces, new toys, and hear new versions of old tales. This is when a playground outside home or a pre-primary school can be of great benefit, because they extend not only the learning has been taking place at home, but they also provide all the important social development.

Your child could be intellectually well endowed, but unless she is able to relate to people effectively, she will sadly be as a good as handicapped. Encouraging a child to mix and match herself against others in the open market is essential for sound development.

Common Childhood Habits That Worry Parents

DepEd Usec Francis Varela

By Rainier Allan Ronda
The Philippine Star, January 19, 2012

Grade ones at the Funda UJabule School in Soweto are taught in either Sesotho or isiZulu, with English translations. (Lisa Skinner, M&G)

By Elbie Henning, Graham Dampier & Nick Welch*
Johannesburg, South Africa
Nov 28 2011

m

The question of mother-tongue, dual-medium or English-only instruction in grades one to three is starting to look more nuanced than many of us have ­supposed. So too is the matter of the instruments — the tests — used to assess competence and achievement in these foundation-phase grades.

These are among our findings based on results we released this month of grade one children’s ­overall cognitive ability, their language competence and their knowledge of mathematics. The results come from pilot studies we have designed in the Institute for Childhood Development at the University of Johannesburg.

We tested pupils at two Gauteng schools. One was in Ekurhuleni where English is the only medium of instruction.

The 30 grade ones tested here come from homes where nearly all the African languages in the country are spoken, but there is very little classroom support in their mother tongue.

The other was the Funda UJabule School on the Soweto campus of the University of Johannesburg, where the two grade one classes are taught in either Sesotho or isiZulu, with English translations. This is done to acquaint with the English terminology of ­mathematics and to link mother tongue and English systematically. As described recently in this newspaper, the 76 children tested here are thus taught largely in their mother tongue but their teachers use a structured dual-language translation approach (“Languages of excellence”, Mail & Guardian, October 21). The mathematics tests are designed and standardised in Germany but translated and ­localised — they are conducted in the children’s mother tongues and adapted to objects known to the ­children, for instance soccer balls and fruits.

Reading the results

The first notable result is that all the children have a reasonable understanding of number and size in a test designed for children in Europe. The average for the ­children in the Soweto school was 61% and for the children in the English-language school in Ekurhuleni it was 55%. We had expected that the children in this school would not cope well with the test, given what the literature says about mother-tongue instruction and also what is intuitive to South Africans: we are quite set in our ways and beliefs when it comes to mother-tongue instruction. Yet the ­children in this school seemed to have ­mastered some of the more challenging conceptual items well. They also did better on some of the more ­difficult questions.

But there is little doubt that, based on results from Funda UJabule, a dual-language teaching approach is a good thing. By dual language we mean that the children’s mother tongue is used as a support tool while the teaching increasingly takes place in English.

But there is more to it than simply ad hoc support: the teachers in this school follow a systematic translation process in which they do not encourage random language-mixing or code-switching. While the spoken dialects, such as the urban varieties of isicamtho or tsotsitaal, are not ignored, the children are encouraged to use their mother tongue in the way it is used in their reading books in the early grades, for instance. They thus get to know the terminology of numeracy and mathematics in both English and the mother tongue and they explore meaning in both English and the home language. And so they build a repertoire of terms and phrases in English. In grade two they will take the test in English.

Introducing English as the medium of teaching mathematics at Funda UJabule was not merely a pragmatic decision arising from teachers’ discomfort with using only isiZulu or Sesotho in the two classes. It had to do with our concern about large-scale testing. It is general knowledge in this country that our children perform poorly in these tests. No one would disagree that language is an obstacle in these tests, but we do not know enough about just how this obstacle manifests.

We conducted one-hour individual interviews with each of the children during the testing and these strongly reinforced our belief that the language of abstract concepts, or academic language, is the necessary partner to understand and cope in school. We think children’s limited repertoire of this language may inhibit their understanding.

Thus, we reasoned, the results of mathematics tests are partly the results of linguistic representation, with all the problems embedded in this. We say this even though we know that some of the conceptual understanding of young children is pre-linguistic. In other words, they may understand something but they cannot verbalise it or recognise it in the form of verbal language. Many learners struggle with mathematical word problems.

So we are encouraged by the results of both schools. The Ekurhuleni results suggest English on its own does not deter grade one children from learning numbers solely in that language. We are also encouraged by the results from Funda UJabule. But we know the numeracy test translations will have to be refined. For instance, in some cases, including everyday language, a colloquial “kushota ngezingaki?” — “how many short?” — could succinctly express “how many less?” better than an ambiguous “zincane kangakanani?” — “how much smaller?”.

The plan
For the next four years we will follow the mathematics understanding of the 2012 cohort of grade ones in these two schools, as well as in two other schools where there is only mother-tongue — isiZulu and Sesotho — instruction in numeracy and mathematics in the first three grades. Between the four schools we should be able to draw some conclusions about the learning of about 200 children over four years, until they are in grade four.

The numeracy test is not the only instrument in our piloting. We also assess the children’s overall cognitive ability on what is generally regarded as a reliable South African “intelligence” test. This test was translated into isiZulu and Sesotho. In the pilot test there was a good correlation between the numeracy scores of this test and the one we have described more fully already.

In addition to these two instruments, we also designed an oral language competence test in English. These results were not unexpected. The school in Ekurhuleni performed substantially better than Funda UJabule, where the children had less exposure to English. We can now only speculate where these scores will lie in four years’ time and how this will correlate with the learners’ performance in school, in the annual national assessments and in the provincial tests.

For the next four years we will administer mother-tongue reading tests for children at Funda UJabule at the end of grade one and in English for the Ekurhuleni school. We plan to include a test on children’s conceptual development in science in this way.

By 2015 we will have large volumes of data in all these areas, showing how each individual child in the Funda UJabule school has ­developed over time compared with data on the children in three control schools. With all these tests we wish to achieve only one aim, namely to give detailed analysis of individual children’s learning over time and to understand dual-language ­education better. We hope to show that ­large-scale surveys answer only some of the questions we need to ask about learning in the foundation phase.

_____

*Elbie Henning is professor of educational linguistics and lead researcher in the University of Johannesburg’s Institute for Childhood Education, Graham Dampier is a researcher at the university’s Centre for Education Practice Research and Nick Welch is a scholar of urban Bantu languages, a vernacular rap artist and a “Strictly Vernac” comedian who also works as a part-time researcher at the ­University of Johannesburg.

The participants were to have been selected from the schools implementing MTB-MLE, kindergarten and Grade I teachers for last summer (2011), Grade II teachers for this school year (2011-2012), Grade II teachers for the coming school year and thereafter, and teachers who are native speakers of the language to be taught.

The topics for the training are four-fold:

1. Theoretical Foundations to MTB-MLE: (a) learning theories: Piaget’s Developmental Theory, Anderson’s Schema Theory, Bandura’s Social Theory, and Vygotsky’s Social Constructivist Theory; (b) language acquisition theories: Krashen’s 5 Theories, Cummins’s’ BICS and CALP, and Cultural Transmission Model of Learning.
2. Pedagogical Foundations to MTB-MLE consisting of (a) Strong Foundations of MTB-MLE, (b) Adapting the Curriculum, (c) Bridging Process, (d) Teaching Strategies using the unique feature of MTB-MLE (The Two-Track Method, Interactive Strategies, Use of Manipulative Games, and Experiential such as small group discussions, Total Physical Response, etc., and (e) Demo and Return demo teaching.
3. Topics for Teaching – Learning Materials Development consisting of (a) Listening Story, (b) Small Books, (c) Big Books, (d) Experience Story, (e) Primer Lessons, and (f) Lesson Examplars.
4. Awareness Building/Advocacy were to have been taken up during the Orientation-Training.

The above training contents are mighty impressive. We’re wondering how the evaluation of the training, trainees and trainers looks like. We know some of those involved are busy with applying their training with MTB-MLE learning materials development.

For the development of certain MTB-MLE learning materials (e.g., stories, books, etc.) in those languages which boast of an already existing and, in most cases, vibrant body of literature, language grammar and dictionaries, I cannot understand why DepEd did not see the practicality of engaging writers and subject matter experts in these languages — those who are not currently employed by DepEd — instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with its own staff who were selected for MTB-MLE training and who are mostly not experienced writers. Why, Sec. Luistro?

• Bangladesh: Ethnic minorities face higher school drop-out risk – IRIN Asia; 4 November 2011
• Donors need multilingual understanding – Guardian Weekly; 9 November 2011
• Thailand ‘off target’ with language teaching plans – Guardian Weekly; 9 November 2011
• Why schools are failing our children – Philippine Daily Inquirer; 19 November 2011
• Mother language education – The Express Tribune; 28 November 2011
• On the mysteries of early learning – Mail & Guardian Online; 28 November 2011
• Mr. Lee Kuan Yew launches fund to boost bilingualism – The Straits Times; 29 November 2011
• DepEd issues guidelines for mother tongue teaching – Philippine Daily Inquirer; 2 December 2011
• Osh officials consider shutting Uzbek-language schools - Central Asia Newswire; 8 December 2011
• Ancient tongues meet digital age - The New York Times Magazine; 12 December 2011
• National language policy – Ceylon Daily News; 14 December 2011
• Vietnam boosts education for ethnic minority children  - Thanh Nien Daily; 21 December 2011

Resources

• Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies. Prepare for the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) by Dutcher, N.
• Home language and education in the developing world. (Background paper prepared for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009, Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters) by UNESCO
• Language of Instruction and Quality of Learning in Tanzania and Ghana: The impact of language of instruction, teacher training and textbooks on quality of learning in Africa by EdQual
• Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor by UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)
• Our Mother Tongues: Discover America’s First Languages
• Planning Mother Tongue Based Education Programs in Minority Language Communities by Susan Malone

Upcoming Events

Peipei is a six years old. She can speak, read and write Thai and English quite well for someone her age. Such ability is fairly common among children whose parents speak more than their native language. In that sense Peipei is no ordinary bilingual child as both her parents are native Thai speakers while English is their foreign language.

It all began five years ago when Pongrapee Tachapahapong, Peipei’s father, found an inspiring passage in a Japanese book authored by Masaru Ibuka and translated into Thai under the title Kwa Ja Ruu Kor Sai Sia Laew , or “kindergarten is too late”. The book completely changed his perspective towards learning English as a second language.

In the book the author had noted the most suitable period for linguistic and cognitive development of a child were from the time they were nine months to three years old. And Pongrapee set himself the goal to raise Peipei to be bilingual in Thai and English.

The family chose the One Parent One Language (OPOL) system, one of the most practical and well-recognised strategies for raising bilingual children in which each parent speaks one language to their child _ Pongrapee speaks English to Peipei, while his wife speaks Thai to her at all times. The couple speak Thai to each other, so Peipei knows that her father can speak Thai, but somehow chooses to speak in English to her. With this method, Peipei began her journey to become a Thai-English bilingual child.

Having achieved English conversation, reading, and writing skills for Peipei using the OPOL system with the help of supplementary tools such as free online dictionary, English DVDs and television programmes, Pongrapee embarked on a journey to make his linguistic methods and strategies known to the public. He has appeared on several television programmes. He has also written three books on how to raise bilingual children, specifically Thai children.

In his first book, Dek Song Phasa Pho-Mae Sang Dai that translates as “Bilingual Children: You Can Create Them”, Pongrapee raised an interesting question (and perhaps one that hurts): “Despite our long term (approximately 16 years for ordinary Thais) exposure to English at school, why do we still speak English so poorly?”

Pongrapee pointed out that our traditional method of teaching English, such as direct-translation in which “a-n-t ant = mod”, which young Thai students are forced to learn by rote and memorise English words, and the grammar-oriented classes were not conducive to learning English. He believes a more natural approach should be introduced in the classroom.

Unfortunately, since there haven’t been any positive signs of change in the English-language curricula developed by the Ministry of Education, his advice to Thai parents is to start speaking English to your child as early as possible, even if you have very limited proficiency in English. The key concepts are: Speak English to your child only on a level you are comfortable with, do not push yourself too hard, make language learning an enjoyable experience, and never put pressure on your children.

He emphasised that each family has its own social and cultural milieu. You should ponder and decide on your own whether you should go for the OPOL, One-Time-Of-Day One-Language (OTOL) or Minority Language at Home (MlaH) system. By raising your children speaking English at home, there is no need for you to send them to international schools which are expensive.

Pongrapee has a website, Mooban Dek Song Phasa, Pho-Mae Sang Dai, or “the Village of Bilingual Children: All Parents Can Create One”, In this online community he called himself Phuyai Big (Mr Big, the village chief). The website is a place where parents who have used this method share their stories and exchange experiences and opinions. Today, more than 16,000 parents (including myself!) have registered as members of the village. The community is very supportive in helping its members reach the bilingual milestone.

So, what do the experts say? Linguists have different views about this non-stereotypical bilingualism. In her book Raising a Bilingual Child, Dr Barbara Zurer Pearson of the University of Massachusetts described a linguistic situation as in the case of Pongrapee’s family as “elective” bilingualism with OPOL. She said that it can also be called “artificial” or “non-native” bilingualism.

Dr Pearson stated: “Parents should not refrain from speaking the second language just because it is not their native tongue and they fear transmitting their errors and their foreign accent in it. As long as you have a desire to do it, and have reasonable fluency in the language, in most cases the extra opportunity you provide for your children to practice the language outweighs the potential inconvenience of their picking up your errors.”

Prof Kendall King and Prof Alison Mackey of Georgetown University also have a rather similar opinion towards elective bilingualism. In their book, The Bilingual Edge: Why, When, and How To Teach Your Child a Second Language, they wrote: “It’s a myth to assume you need to be a native speaker to provide quality second language interaction for your child. Parents who have some limited second language skills can still provide an important foundation in the language. The truly critical factor is rich, dynamic, and meaningful interaction with speakers of those languages (and this can come in many different forms).”

In contrast, Prof Colin Baker from the University of Wales in his book A Parents and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism, responded to a question: “My second language is not perfect. Should I speak it to my child?” as “One thing is for sure. If you are a bad model of language for your child, you should not speak that language to the child. If a child begins to learn incorrect linguistic structures or inexact expression from you speaking a second language, you may be undermining rather than helping the child’s language development.”

A similar view was found in Linguist List (www.linguistlist.org), a well-known website in linguistics circles. In response to similar questions, Prof Deborah Ruuskanen of the University of Vaasa, Finland, replied: “Teaching a child a language that is not the mother-tongue of either parent is usually not a good idea. Unless the parents are completely bilingual themselves, that is, they speak two languages as native languages, then the sounds that are produced for the child to imitate will be tinged with a strong ‘foreign accent’.”

On the other hand, Anthea Fraser Gupta, a senior lecturer from the University of Leeds, simply replied: “Don’t worry; be natural; be a parent.”

Whatever view one has about this so-called elective/artificial/non-native bilingualism, certainly there has not yet been any tangible evidence that supports it or argues against it. My opinion is that as long as parents make sure their children’s native language is developing at a normal rate, there should be no risk in introducing a second language to their children. And since learning English in Thai schools has proven unsuccessful, there is nothing to lose by helping our children to improve their English skills when we have the ability to do so.

However, if you shook your head in disapproval of this method of raising a bilingual child, and by any chance someone in your family was seriously practicing it, why feel resentful when you know that they are going to raise their children in this way regardless of your opinion? Instead, I think that it is more constructive to give them support and advice, rather than discouraging and putting pressure on them. In other words, if you can’t beat them, join them! The result might be more rewarding than you could ever imagine in terms of what your children are capable of.

Most linguists agree that it is very hard to find an ideal balanced bilingual person who has the same levels of command in both languages, with the same levels of listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. As such, we (Thais) don’t have to expect that our children would become perfectly bilingual in all those skills.

A better speaking skill in a second language could already be satisfactory for some parents who don’t aim too high. I totally agree with Pongrapee that as long as the English environment at home is pleasant and enjoyable, no damage would come to your children.

It has been said that second or foreign-language learning is an endless task. The future of English proficiency practiced by non-native bilingual families, those 16,000 families in Pongrapee’s online village, is yet to be known. But I think Pongrapee deserves a round of applause for the devotion to his daughter, and for bringing to our Thai society an alternative method for learning English, when English-language classrooms in Thailand are as yet far from satisfactory.

MLE in the News

• Bangladesh: Ethnic minorities face higher school drop-out risk – IRIN Asia; 4 November 2011
• Donors need multilingual understanding – Guardian Weekly; 9 November 2011
• Thailand ‘off target’ with language teaching plans – Guardian Weekly; 9 November 2011
• Why schools are failing our children – Philippine Daily Inquirer; 19 November 2011
• Mother language education – The Express Tribune; 28 November 2011
• On the mysteries of early learning – Mail & Guardian Online; 28 November 2011
• Mr. Lee Kuan Yew launches fund to boost bilingualism – The Straits Times; 29 November 2011
• DepEd issues guidelines for mother tongue teaching – Philippine Daily Inquirer; 2 December 2011
• Osh officials consider shutting Uzbek-language schools - Central Asia Newswire; 8 December 2011
• Ancient tongues meet digital age - The New York Times Magazine; 12 December 2011
• National language policy – Ceylon Daily News; 14 December 2011
• Vietnam boosts education for ethnic minority children  - Thanh Nien Daily; 21 December 2011

Resources

• Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies. Prepare for the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) by Dutcher, N.
• Home language and education in the developing world. (Background paper prepared for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009, Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters) by UNESCO
• Language of Instruction and Quality of Learning in Tanzania and Ghana: The impact of language of instruction, teacher training and textbooks on quality of learning in Africa by EdQual
• Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor by UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)
• Our Mother Tongues: Discover America’s First Languages
• Planning Mother Tongue Based Education Programs in Minority Language Communities by Susan Malone

Past & Upcoming Events