On mother tongue and physical torture

WHEN policies and public statements by government officials are not aligned with empirical evidence, they become unpleasant, disturbing and alarming. In the recent past, there was double whammy in the area of education, namely, the seemingly imminent suspension of the Mother Tongue-based Multi-Lingual Education (MTB-MLE) in Kinder to Grade 3, and the Sen. Robin Padilla’s remark on the acceptability of “slight” physical torture.

This column argues with empirical evidence to enrich public opinion and to bring a challenge through the use of empirical data derived from science.

Language of thinking

Recently, 240 congressmen approved House Bill 6717 to halt the use of the first language to teach Kinder to Grade 3. This is amid the rich empirical global evidence of its effectiveness. The problem is in the implementation, including the absence of books written in mother tongue, lack of vocabulary and lack of teacher-training (Lartec, et.al).

In a public opinion survey conducted by the office of Sen. Win Gatchalian, only 38 percent of the 1,200 respondents preferred the use of the local language as medium of instruction for primary level Grades 1 to 3. The most preferred is Filipino (88 percent) followed by English (71 percent). Beyond politics, the empirical data and experts’ opinions available from all over the world are better confirmatory evidence that the mother tongue, the language of thinking, is the most effective medium of instruction for these children in the formative years.

Students with a high level of proficiency in the mother tongue perform well in mathematics (Perez and Alieto). The study found that when the children are taught in a language known to them, they can make sense of the concepts discussed in the classroom. Children who are taught using the mother tongue (MT) have higher mental flexibility, processing power and spontaneity, and higher self-esteem and academic achievement (Santiago and Dagdag). MTB-MLE learners feel more comfortable in asking and answering questions, sharing thoughts, and doing things on their own; and foster higher critical thinking skills and control of their learning. The purpose of using MT in school should be to facilitate the communication of ideas sensitive to the prevailing cultures of the learners, and not to bring back the exact language and cultures of the past.

There are voluminous studies that add to the ever-growing number of schools of thought that MT teaching in South African schools is practical and could be beneficial. In Lithuania, a revival of interest in using a MT in the English classroom is stipulated by necessity to improve language accuracy, fluency and clarity. In China, a study found that by making explicit reference to learners’ conceptual understanding of the MT, and by raising their conscious awareness of similarities and differences between Chinese and English, learners’ existing schema can be activated. Taking advantage of what students have already known conceptually, strategically and linguistically allows a “cumulative development” and “intellectual continuity” in language development. In Nigeria, a study concluded that using MT in early childhood classrooms was effective in fostering children’s learning abilities. The effect of the MT on the quality of learning abilities could be attributed to the fact that the pupils didn’t need to do any mental translation of all concepts.

On slight physical torture

There was a stir when Sen. Robinhood Padilla was quoted as saying that “slight” physical torture is acceptable based on how it has helped him become who he is. The senator may have been a case study of the exception rather than the rule.

A long-term study by Mechtlid Scafer, in three countries in Europe, correlates victimization in school with aspects of functioning in adult life and victimization experiences in adulthood. Victims scored lower on general self-esteem and higher on emotional loneliness, and reported more difficulties in maintaining friendships, than nonvictims. Victims in secondary school had a lower self-esteem in relation to the opposite sex and were more often fearfully attached. This indicates a general association between victimization in school and quality of later life predominately robust to variations in gender, occupation and country.

A carefully controlled prospective study by Ken Rigby provides a converging picture of the long-term effects of being bullied in childhood. The effects of being bullied extend beyond the consequences of other childhood adversity and adult abuse. The effects of frequent bullying were as detrimental 40 years later. Those who were bullied more frequently, more severely (i.e., directly and indirectly) or more chronically (i.e., over a longer period of time) have worse outcomes.

Even those who stopped being bullied during school age showed some lingering effects on their health, self-worth and quality of life years later compared to those never bullied. Where victims and bully have been considered separately, the bully (who is a victim of the bullying experience as well) seem to show the poorest outcomes concerning mental health, economic adaptation, social relationships and early parenthood. This is consistent with a view that bullies are highly sophisticated social manipulators who are callous and show little empathy.

Zero tolerance

Modern society must have a zero tolerance of violence. Bullying should never be wrongly considered as a “normal rite of passage.” The Matatag agenda of Education Secretary Sara Duterte carries the tagline “Bansang Makabata, Batang Makabansa.”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child entitle children to protection from all forms of discrimination or punishment and recognizes children’s right to protection from all forms of violence, including physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment, exploitation, including sexual abuse.

The Unesco acknowledges that violence in educational settings is a daily reality that denies millions of children and young people the fundamental human right to education. One estimate by Plan International suggests that 246 million children and adolescents experience violence in and around school every year. This prompted the Unesco to set the outcomes for the elimination of school violence and bullying.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) also made a Declaration on the Elimination of Bullying of Children. The pact signed in 2021 expressed its deep concern about the harmful and long lasting impacts of bullying on the physical and psycho-emotional and sociocultural development, health, self-esteem, sense of confidence and overall well-being of children in Asean, especially since it can be unseen physically.

In the Philippines, RA 10627 was passed to be the “Anti-Bullying Act of 2013.” It referred to “bullying” as any severe or repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a hostile environment at school for the other student; infringing on the rights of the other student at school; or materially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school. Any unwanted physical contact between the bully and the victim is cited as bullying along with any act that causes damage to a victim’s psyche and/or emotional well-being; any slanderous statement or accusation and cyberbullying.

The major advantage of the Information Age is the availability of data, which may be curated to give more guidance to what needs to be said and done, especially prior to making policies and even public statements. Amid the already highly opinionated social media, public officials need to rely less on personal, or even public, opinions. They need to be propelled by data, science, empirical evidence, and intellectual exercises to make actions and statements more logically worthwhile, and to shape and lead public opinion. That is why they are called leaders.