Distinguished members of the Loop:
This is a long-overdue posting that should have accompanied the signing of DO 74.
One of the biggest sources of apprehension and the chief reason for objection of officials (and even the general public) in mandating MLE is the gargantuan expenditure for producing materials.
Does MLE always mean having to translate?
Most people then thought that beside the cost of translating MLE learning materials which would have to come from the central office of the DepEd, the cost of producing and distributing textbooks and other related materials would be so enormous. One party list congressman who was sent to the House of Reps for education causes voted for the Gullas Bill because his impression was that by going MLE, the entire basic education budget would have to be doubled. He further reasoned out that we cannot afford this even with small gradual budgetary increments.
We need to clarify this aspect of the MLE policy in our social advocacy efforts.
The above video is the presentation I made in at least 3 MLE Fora in Bicol for the Loopers’ information and comments. The basic policy rationale of the proposed all-out implementation is lifted from the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-10 (MTPDP). This is why one of the distinct features of DO 74 is the provision on localization and school/community-based initiatives. This was in turn patterned after the Papua New Guinea model which launched its MLE without substantial additional Ministry of Education budget increase, even as the country has 800 plus languages. How could they have done this? Please see the video.
Nap B. Imperial