FOLLOWING the release of the cross-country study on transitions in language-of-instruction policies which included a Philippine case study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, the National Education Plan (NatPlan) for 2026–2035 was unveiled. With a mission to transform the Philippine education system into an “integrated, responsive and data-driven” framework by 2035, the NatPlan aims to equip Filipino citizens with the fundamental skills necessary for learning, career and life. Mandated by Section 7 of Republic Act 11899, this report includes a comprehensive road map, results framework and key performance indicators designed to address the current learning crisis.
The NatPlan is the primary output of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EdCom 2), a high-level policy commission established in 2022. Tasked with reviewing and reforming the education system across all levels, EdCom 2 was formed more than 30 years after the original EdCom to address persistent challenges such as learning poverty, educational outcomes, skills mismatches and interagency coordination.
From a linguistic perspective, the plan offers an interesting look into how language education is currently envisioned. A close reading suggests that the NatPlan does not present a stand-alone language policy, nor does it explicitly frame language within a rights-based or migration-related context. Instead, language functions primarily as a tool for achieving functional literacy and inclusive learning. While communication is identified as a foundational skill for civic participation and early grade reading is prioritized to combat the learning crisis, the specific languages of instruction and a formal commitment to multilingual education remain largely understated. Even within sections on inclusive education — targeting Indigenous peoples, Muslim learners and learners with disabilities, language accommodation is often assumed rather than specifically detailed. Furthermore, while the plan’s emphasis on decentralization allows for local language-sensitive initiatives, it stops short of establishing national standards for linguistic inclusion.
This implicit treatment of language is particularly noteworthy given the country’s ongoing experience with Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). As one of the most significant reforms in Philippine education history, MTB-MLE continues to face implementation challenges, including shortages of specialized materials and teacher training, alongside questions regarding the transition to Filipino and English. The NatPlan does not explicitly detail how MTB-MLE will be refined or integrated into a long-term strategy, potentially treating it more as a background policy than an evolving component of the system.
For a national road map to be truly forward-looking, it may benefit from a more explicit exploration of how mother tongues, Filipino and English can be developed in complementary ways. Building on the lessons learned from the rollout of MTB-MLE would ensure that these linguistic issues are addressed with the deliberate and sustained attention required for systemic reform. It remains to be seen how these critical language education issues will be further articulated and resolved in future policy iterations.
Furthermore, as a scholar of Philippine English, I would have welcomed an explicit mention of this localized variety and a discussion of its formal role within the national educational framework. Acknowledging the status of Philippine English would not only validate the country’s unique linguistic identity but also provide much-needed clarity for teachers and curriculum designers navigating the nuances of English language education in a multilingual society.
And finally, as a scholar of migration linguistics, I also note that the plan contains no explicit provisions for foreign students, particularly with respect to language. Foreign learners are not identified as a distinct group, and there is no guidance on how their linguistic needs — such as Filipino-as-a-second-language support, English bridging programs, or accommodation for other home languages — should be addressed. Instead, the plan assumes a shared linguistic baseline and treats language as a general learning competency rather than an access issue shaped by migration and mobility. As a result, the language needs of foreign students are left to ad hoc local responses, rendering them effectively invisible within a national framework that otherwise aspires to inclusion and equity.
Ariane Macalinga Borlongan is a public intellectual, language scholar and migrant advocate. He is one of the leading researchers on English in the Philippines and one of the pioneers of migration linguistics. He is the youngest to earn a doctorate in linguistics, at age 23, from De La Salle University, and has had several teaching and research positions in Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Poland and Singapore. He is currently associate professor of sociolinguistics at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
