Language in Education Policy: briefing by Department
Basic Education
05 September 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 September 2006
LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION POLICY: BRIEFING BY DEPARTMENT
Chairperson: Prof S Mayatula (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Language
Policy in Education presentation
SUMMARY
The Department of Education's Language in Education Policy since 1998
is based on the principle of the right of children to be educated in their
mother tongue whilst having access to a global language such as English. The
policy to make available home-language education for Grades One to Six counters
the dominant view amongst teachers and parents that English is the key to a
better life and the sooner children are taught in English, the better.
The Committee agreed that advocacy was needed to convince parents, school
governing bodies and teachers of the advantages of home-language education. The
Department would be requested to present a plan of action that states how to
make this policy implementable
MINUTES
Ms Palesa Tyobeka, Department of Education (DoE): Deputy-Director-General for General Education and Training, presented
on ‘Language Policy in Education’ which she noted was based on the Language
Colloquium hosted in Cape Town in July 2006 (see document). She looked at the
background plan as addressed by the Language in Education Policy (LiEP) in 1998 which was
premised on the principle of maintaining home languages while providing access
to additional languages.
She outlined the key principles for the implementation of the policy and the
philosophy behind it. The application for admission to a school would include a
choice of preferred language of teaching. School governing bodies had to
declare how multi-linguism would be promoted. Detail was provided on languages
as subjects. The attitude of schools towards the policy was explained. English
was perceived as the most optimal language choice in terms of future career
prospects and served as the dominant Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT).
The mother tongue would tend to be used up to grade four after which teaching
would revert to the LOLT. Aspects of the policy tended to surface more readily
in schools with a diverse learnership. Affluent schools were more inclined to have
formally adopted language policies. Indigenous languages were being used more
frequently to enhance comprehension.
Various challenges to implementation were explained. The belief that education
in a home language was inferior persisted. Indigenous languages were perceived
as having limited applicability. More practical support had to be provided to
schools to assist in implementation. Minimal support for indigenous languages
prevailed at the High School level. A clear link existed between effective application
of Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT) and academic achievement.
The Department sought to encourage mother tongue education whilst facilitating
access to a global language such as English. The policy’s implementation would
be strengthened and its core principles inculcated at the school level to
reduce the level of inequality in education. The status quo in schools had to
change for the better.
After the presentation, the Chair noted that the problem was a matter of
attitude, and the general attitude which is "you need to speak English and
if you speak in your mother tongue it will slow the development of your
English”. The decision to change this mind-set did not lie with the Committee
but with the schools and the schools were not convinced. How are we going to
change that mind-set?
The DDG responded that the Chair had hit ‘the nail on the head’. Currently
people are allowed to choose the language in which they want their children
taught. The Department of Education can support home-language education but the
choice lies with the parent. Research studies monitoring home-language schools
and comparing their results to other schools show better cognitive and academic
achievement for the children attending the first type of school. We have to
convey to people that our own languages are as good as English. The problem was
that there were not enough people studying indigenous languages. Some
universities were actually closing some of their African language departments
because of a lack of students.
Discussion
Mr A Gaum (ANC) said that there was a big misconception among the
public about the government's approach. People think that the government does
not see the value of mother-tongue education. He made this remark as a
follow-up to a news article in which a Stellenbosch professor expressed his
concern about Afrikaans education. He agreed with the Chair that it is very
important to advocate this policy to the public plus come up with a plan on
making it implementable. In the Western Cape there is mother-tongue based
education for the first six to seven years. Should the government convince
people that mother-tongue education only for the first three years is not good
enough? He added that English could be phased in early, but only as a second language.
Mr B Mthembu (ANC) remarked that many provinces would like to start home
language education. However, there were not enough teachers able to teach in
the mother tongue. One of the reasons
for this was that one is not encouraged to become an indigenous language
teacher. To fight that, the African languages should be the LOLT, as the
University of Johannesburg is doing in Soweto.
Mr W Spies (FF+) noted that language is one of the core focuses of the Freedom
Front Plus. He was happy that the Department was a believer in home-language
education. However, he expressed his concern about the communities who already
provide mother-tongue education to their children. Why did the Mikro Primary
School have to go to court to ensure that right?
Mr R Ntuli (ANC) said that he found it hard to understand that people think
that an African child can learn better in English. A child will function better
when it is taught in its own language. The ideal situation was home language
learning. However, parental resistance was understandable because English is
important in our society. We cannot impose this policy on people. Parents will
not allow it. Plus we need to have the human infrastructure for this policy
such as having enough teachers.
In her response, the DDG stressed how important the advocacy of the policy is.
The DoE is a supporter of home language education for the first six years.
However, that would be hard to implement when the current policy was not even
met. Children play and develop in their own language and then all of a sudden
they are forced to learn in a different language. She had met teachers who
stated that it is the parents’ job to teach the home language to their
children.
Concerning Mr Mthembu's point, she said that it is important to have more home
language teachers. The DoE is revitalising the studying of indigenous
languages. In Zululand the language of education is already being changed.
Studying in one's home language was a right for all children. Yet, that right
is very selective currently: some kids get it, some do not.
The Western Cape is one of the better resourced provinces. This year 500
assistant-teacher positions had been created. Those people assist children with
understanding the different topics.
In answer to Mr Ntuli’s remarks, she said that DoE had asked Treasury for extra
money for the training of indigenous language teachers. The money was expected
to come through at the beginning of next year and would be used for training
teachers who teach in indigenous languages and teachers who teach English. Its
purpose was to increase the academic levels of the children, not to degrade
English to a second learning language.
She continued that many children did not have access to books or television.
They did not have any information to learn from. Last year the DoE had given
story books to 5 300 schools. This year another 6 000 schools would get those
books. This year 30 mobile libraries had been supplied to schools. This would
help children to learn.
The Chair answered the question about the Mikro School example saying that in
essence the Department's action was not to mock Mikro, but Mikro had to cater
for certain languages if the parents of learners asked for this. If people come
and for instance want to learn in Sesotho, we need to encourage that.
Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked what the most convincing research available was at the
moment and if it was summarised and put into an easily available format so that
it is accessible for parents and teachers who need to make decisions about this?
Mr G Boinamo (DA) asked if the DoE was forcing home-language education down the
throat of parents since most of them and their children did not want it.
Mr I Vadi (ANC) said that it cannot be imposed on people, but all efforts and
money have to be put into convincing people about this policy otherwise nothing
would change. He asked how the DoE was planning on getting children whose home
language is English to learn an African language. The lesser resourced schools
would not make a policy change for this, because of a lack of money to pay a
teacher. He noted that the big differences between provinces had to be
accepted. The provincial Departments of Education should be forced to come up
with a language policy for their specific province.
Ms S Sigcau (UDM) emphasised the importance of training the school governing
bodies. In the rural areas from where she herself comes, these bodies are elected but when you ask them something
about school policy they do not know anything, because they have not been trained. We are supposed to train them.
Mr B Mosala (ANC) said that in heterogeneous communities, different languages
groups are clustered together. In pre-primary schools there is only a teacher
who caters for one language group. That is not fair towards the others. The
resources of these schools are based on numbers, not on what has to be taught
to them. Another thing is many people think English is THE language. We must
ensure children know their own language. A teacher should know the indigenous
language before making an application.
Mr L Greyling (ID) referred to a complaint he had heard in KwaZulu-Natal.
Teachers sometimes switched to the pupils' native language to make themselves
more clearly understood but all the exams were in English. He asked if the
English exam papers could be translated as well
Mr Gaum commented that not enough was being done. ‘We have to put our money
where our mouth is”. The focus should be on Grade One to Six thereby extending
mother-tongue education to more grades. Concerning schools such as the Mikro
Primary School, he would love to see Xhosa and Afrikaans children attending one
school. The problem with dual-medium education is that one out of the two
languages ends up getting more attention. How do you ensure that both languages
get exactly the same amount of attention?
The DDG replied that communication with the parents had to be improved, so that
they know what kind of research supports the government’s policy. It is
presumed that most parents prefer English. However after the language
colloquium held in Cape Town, many parents had come to her and showed support
for the policy. It made them realise that their child is not stupid, but having
language problems. The DoE needs to make the parents understand the home-language
policy. The policy could not be only an intention. It had to be implementable.
For instance, do we have the resources to extend the policy until the sixth
grade?
On the matter of English children learning an African language, she said that
the policy catered for that by stating that all kids need to have learned a
second language for at least three years by the time they reach the ninth
grade. It was very vague. That is how far the government’s policy goes
concerning this topic. We want to alter that and say "this must happen at
that point in time".
The DDG hoped that she would soon be able to share the National Framework for
Teacher Education with the Committee. It regulates that teachers should speak
at least one indigenous language when they graduate. That means no training
after they graduate, but during their study.
She noted that school governing bodies are being trained. She agreed that a lot
of them have not been able to deliver and that the DoE was working on that.
Although there was a lot of room for improvement, they were focusing on that.
For example, coming up with simulation programmes, to make them understand
certain situations.
Concerning dual-medium schools, the DDG stated that the government should leave
some room for schools to come up with their own policy. It was remarkable to
see what schools come up with on their own to cater for various needs. Very
mixed schools have more problems than un-mixed ones.
She noted that some key exam questions are already been translated. The
translated questions give more clarity to the students. The answer has to be in
English though.
Parallel medium schools have more problems than others as it was basically two
schools in one. Some schools even had two assemblies. The DDG said this
concerned her very much.
As an example of how schools struggle she said that she has been to a school in
the Western Cape where both teachers and pupils were Afrikaans and where the
LOLT had been changed to English.
The Chair noted the importance of home-language teaching and said that people
had to be told that their children would know more when they are taught in
their own language.
Mr Boinamo wanted to know if this language policy was for both public and
private schools.
The DDG replied that the policy applied to all schools. She noted that the DoE
had come up with a guideline that said that when minimum of 20 children wanted
to be taught in a certain language that that school had to cater for them. But
we have to make sure that we can deliver on that and that the resources are in
place. If not, then it is meaningless coming up with a policy like that.
Mr Gaum remarked to the Chair that it would be a good idea if the DoE was asked
to appear before the Committee with a plan of action that states when and where
such will be implemented.
Everybody, including the Chair, agreed with his proposal.
The meeting was adjourned.
Appendix 1: Address
by the Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, MP, at the language colloquium,
Cape Town
Prof Moleleki,
Chairperson of the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB)
Mr E Sambo, Acting Chief Executive Officer of PANSALB
Mr Adama Samessekou, President of the Academy of Languages, Mali
Distinguished guests
Let me welcome you all here today. This mini-seminar is intended as an opportunity
to reflect on current practice and to begin to define a practical approach to
the practice of language in education policy, an approach that supports quality
of learning and teaching and reflects the best lessons of education research.
Our language policy seeks to achieve a number of important imperatives.
First, it encourages use of the mother tongue as a clear departure from past
practice. Study in the mother tongue should introduce a diversity of learning
opportunities that have been unavailable in South Africa in the past. The
policy recognises that past policy and practice has disadvantaged millions of
children and it also promotes the effective learning and teaching of the
previously neglected indigenous languages of South Africa.
The policy adopted in 1997 has not been implemented convincingly up to this
point. Resources have not been made available in amounts that would give effect
to the policy. There has also been a poor response to fears that parents have
about a perceived imposition of old style apartheid education. Further, the
policy has not enjoyed a prominence similar to that given to other policy
shifts in education.
As always it is important to repeat that the policy does not, as some have
claimed, deny children the opportunity to acquire English or any other second
language. Rather it is empowering through the assertion that language-learning
opportunities must be made available in all the official languages of South
Africa.
Second, all young people should be able to speak and write in a language other
than their mother tongue.
Third, young people need to have the ability to communicate in a third
indigenous language.
But most importantly, the success of our policy depends on how we manage in an
efficient and beneficial manner in all provinces, the effective utilisation of
mother-tongue education and the acquisition of competence in the chosen lingua
franca.
We have agreed that our language in education policy and practice should be
shaped in a manner that promotes the achievement of these three important
imperatives:
* increased use of and competence in the mother tongue, as a medium of
instruction, at least in primary school
* improved ability in a second language, such as English, to support further
study and respond to the legitimate desires of parents and learners
* the development of communicative ability in at least one African language,
for all South African children.
The major obstacles we face in promoting mother-tongue learning are that the
many of parents still prefer their children to be taught through the medium of
the English language.
The obstacle that this preference creates is compounded by the fact that not
enough teachers have been adequately prepared to teach in English.
This language preference is clearly expressed in the recently published Human
Sciences Research Council (HRSC) survey of South African social attitudes. Most
South Africans prefer the use of English as the language of instruction from
grade one (with the exceptions of the Western Cape and the Northern Cape). And
the commitment to English grows stronger from grade six to grade twelve.
The conclusion reached was the following: “English is the language of perceived
potential upward educational mobility among almost all black Africans;
Afrikaans maintains some strengths at all levels and African languages, even at
the lowest levels in the system, are considered as having a subsidiary role
that diminishes yet further as the black child climbs through the system” (p.
203).
How then does one reconcile such a view with our present policies? What can
educational policy makers do to prevent the neglect of African languages in the
education system? How do we achieve linguistic equality and also fully prepare
learners for economic competition in a global society?
The benefits that language diversity confers on any society far outstrip any
advantages that mono-lingualism may offer. All recent research confirms this
view.
It is also now conventional wisdom that a strong mother-tongue foundation
provides the best platform on which to base the learning of a second language;
it makes it easier and faster.
There is also mounting evidence that a correlation exists between mother-tongue
loss and the educational difficulties experienced by many learners using another
language for learning.
We have another dimension to confront in regard to language in our schools. The
advent of democracy has brought about greater population mobility than ever
before.
A consequence of this is the linguistic, ‘racial’, and religious diversity
within schools.
Let me take one example. In one school in Pretoria, learners come from 14
nations and speak 16 different languages. At home only two out five of this
school’s children speak English to their parents and siblings. Yet the school uses
English as medium of instruction, teaches English First Language to all the
children, and Afrikaans as the second language. This indicates that though the
composition of the pupil body has changed significantly over the last ten
years, little has changed in coming to terms with linguistic diversity.
This sort of diversity has been commonplace in many other countries around the
world, but educational policies and practices vary widely between countries and
even within countries.
At times we as political actors have found ourselves caught between research
and social reality. It is vital that as education practitioners we should
implement our policies in a coherent and educationally sound manner.
I hope that today the people invited to this meeting will assist us in
evaluating initiatives, in learning from practice elsewhere, and support our
determination to give effect to the promise offered by recent policy. A diverse
mix of invitees has been brought together. The choice was based on our belief
that the persons in this room are the most helpful collective in the domain of
the interface between language and learning.
I hope the discussions will be constructive. South Africa has to move beyond
the old philosophies and positions on the use of languages, in all our schools,
in all our provinces. How do we best promote our languages and cultures? What
are the choices we want our educators, school managers and officials to make in
ensuring that the very essence of our “language in education policy” finds its way
to our learners through best practice and effective models?
These are the issues we hope to clarify through your contributions and support.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.