<div dir="ltr"><h1 class="">Language in School: If You Don't Understand, How Can You Learn?<span class=""></span><span class=""></span>
</h1>
<div class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<p><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/40pc-copy-copy.jpg" alt="40pc copy copy" align="left" height="316" width="327">How
a country chooses the language for its education system is not an easy
process. The decision is usually influenced by multiple factors:
colonial history, origins of immigrants, legal recognition of minority
languages, cultural diversity, political interests - to mention but a
few. In some cases, instruction is provided in more than one language;
in others the medium of instruction may vary between primary and
secondary education.</p><p>Underneath this tangled and evolving web of policies and priorities, however, lies an undeniable truth: <em>teaching and assessing children in a language they understand will result in better learning</em>.
This is something that has been recognised now for decades. It is
written into the 1989 ILO Convention and Convention on the Rights of the
Child and the 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Our new
paper out today, <a href="https://bit.ly/MLD2016">'<em>If you don't understand, how can you learn?'</em></a>
confirms this basic principle, and yet reports that, despite the
overwhelming evidence supporting this claim, 40% are still not able to
access education in a language they understand. It is clear that the
complex nature of factors affecting language-education policy still take
precedent over the accumulation of evidence.</p><p>Countries with
colonial histories often find that shifting to bilingual education is
complicated, as can be seen in many Latin American contexts that
continue to use Portuguese, or Spanish, or in many Francophone African
countries, where French remains the predominant language of instruction.
Our <a href="http://www.education-inequalities.org/">World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE)</a> shows that this trend seriously hampers students' chances of learning. In <a href="http://www.education-inequalities.org/indicators/rlevel1#?sort=mean&dimension=speaks_language&group=all&age_group=rlevel1_1&countries=all">Côte d'Ivoire,</a>
for example, 55% of grade 5 students who speak the test language at
home learned the basics in reading in 2008, compared with only 25% of
those who speak another language.</p><div id="modulous_mid_article" class="">
</div>
<p><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/graph1.png" alt="graph1" height="310" width="773"></p><p>Nor is this confined to sub-Saharan Africa. <a href="http://www.education-inequalities.org/indicators/rlevel1#?sort=mean&dimension=speaks_language&group=all&age_group=rlevel1_1&countries=all">In Iran</a>,
around 80% of grade 4 students who spoke a language other than Farsi at
home reached the basics in reading, compared with over 95% of Farsi
speakers.</p><p><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/graph-2.png" alt="graph 2" align="left" height="141" width="773"></p><p>Similarly<a href="http://www.education-inequalities.org/indicators/rlevel1#?sort=mean&dimension=speaks_language&group=all&age_group=rlevel1_1&countries=all">, in Honduras,</a>
in 2011, 94% of students who spoke the language of instruction at home
learned the basics in reading in primary school compared to 62% of those
who did not.</p><p><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/graph3.png" alt="graph3" height="133" width="775"></p><p><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/mld-circle-2.jpg?w=298" alt="MLD circle 2" align="left" height="229" width="227">Part
of the repeated emphasis over teaching children in a language they
understand is because linguistic barriers only serve to exacerbate the
divides caused by other disadvantages such as poverty or gender or
location. Students from poor households who speak a minority language at
home are among the lowest performers. In Turkey in 2012, around 50% of
poor non-Turkish speakers among 15 year olds achieved minimum benchmarks
in reading, against the national average of 80%. As such, a
mono-lingual education system can unwittingly promote educational
disadvantages and economic inequalities from one generation to the next.</p><p>The
decision over language policy in schools is highly contested since the
choice of which language to use for instruction can divide just as it
can unite; it forms a group's identity, and as such can be the glue to
bring people together, or the barrier that divides them.</p><p>In
multi-ethnic countries, in particular, the imposition of a single
dominant language as the language of instruction in schools, while
sometimes a choice of necessity, has been a frequent source of grievance
linked to wider issues of social and cultural inequality.</p><p>Our
paper lays out several of these examples. Disputes about using Kurdish
in schools have been an integral part of the conflict in eastern <strong>Turkey</strong>. In <strong>Nepal</strong>,
the imposition of Nepali as the language of instruction fed into the
broader set of grievances among non-Nepali speaking castes and ethnic
minorities that drove the civil war. <strong>Guatemala's</strong> imposition of Spanish on schools was seen by indigenous people as part of a broader pattern of social discrimination. In <strong>Pakistan</strong>,
the continued use of Urdu as the language of instruction in government
schools, even though it is spoken at home by less than 8% of the
population, has also contributed to political tensions</p><a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf">The GMR 2005</a><a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf"><img class="" src="https://efareport.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/mld-circle.jpg?w=300" alt="MLD circle" align="left" height="262" width="263"></a>
argued that there can be no discussions of quality in education without
consideration of the language of instruction. With a renewed focus on
quality in the post-2015 education agenda, our <a href="https://bit.ly/MLD2016">new paper</a>
helps policy makers find a way through the issue, and lays out some key
recommendations to ensure that children are taught in a language they
understand.
<ol><li><strong>At least six years of mother tongue instruction is needed, </strong>if the gains from teaching in mother tongue in the early years are to be sustained.</li><li><strong>Education policies should recognize the importance of mother tongue learning</strong>.
A review of 40 countries' education plans finds that only less than
half of them recognize the importance of teaching children in their home
language, particularly in early grades.</li><li><strong>Teachers need to be trained to teach in two languages and to understand the needs of second-language learners</strong>.
Teachers are rarely prepared for the reality of bilingual classrooms.
In Senegal, only 8%, and in Mali, only 2% of trained teachers expressed
confidence about teaching in local languages. The paper suggests hiring
teachers from minority language communities as one policy solution to
the problem.</li><li><strong>Teachers need inclusive teaching materials and appropriate assessment strategies</strong> to help them identify weak learners and provide them with targeted support.</li><li><strong>Provide culturally appropriate school-readiness programmes</strong>:
Locally recruited bilingual teaching assistants can support ethnic
minority children from isolated communities as they make the transition
into primary school.</li><li class=""><strong>Second-chance accelerated learning programmes in local languages</strong> can help the disadvantaged to catch up.</li></ol><p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/aaron-benavot/language-in-school_b_9272850.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/aaron-benavot/language-in-school_b_9272850.html</a><br></p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br><br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************</div>
</div>