[lg policy] Zambia: The =?windows-1252?Q?=91familiar=92_?=language debate issues

Fri Jan 17 14:35:29 UTC 2014

The ‘familiar’ language debate issues
January 17, 2014
[image: SCHOOL PUPILS
KANYAMA]<http://daily-mail.co.zm/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SCHOOL-PUPILS-KANYAMA.jpg>
CHATTING EDUCATION with KENNETH CHIMESE

IN A background paper for the Education for All Global Monitoring report of
2005, prepared for the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO), discussed under the theme ‘Language of Instruction
and the Quality of Basic Education in Zambia’, author Shay Linehan (2004)
documents the very long journey that Zambia has taken in arriving at what
today has been announced as the way to go in so far as language policy in
schools is concerned.
>>From 1927 to 1963, the language policy in pre-colonial and post-colonial
eras, including the time of the Federation up to 1963, allowed for the use
a mother tongue as medium of instruction for the first two years of school
which was followed by a dominant vernacular up to standard five – (the
equivalent of grade seven). English was used there after!

And it was in 1963 that a group of Australian educationists undertook a
review of the education system in the about-to-be independent Zambia.

The review, sponsored again by UNESCO recommended, “The medium of
instruction should be English, from the beginning of schooling …” and this
was in 1965 endorsed by the Hardman report ‘written by a language officer
seconded by the United Kingdom to Zambia to investigate the challenges of
teaching English to primary school children.’ It was that report which was
enshrined in the Education Act of 1966.

English then was formally adopted as the medium of instruction from grade
one to tertiary education. This, it was felt, was for reasons of national
unity and the belief that the earlier a language was introduced to
learners, the better.

It was that decision which saw the birth of the English medium scheme at
primary school level, and what was later known as the (New) Zambia Primary
English Course (ZPC).

In spite of that decision, one can note that for the 30 years that
followed, a number of efforts were made to ‘reverse this
straight-for-English approach’ as could be seen from two education policy
reviews of 1977 (Education Reform: Proposals and Recommendations) and 1991
which argued for the importance of vernacular languages and the role they
played in ensuring quality in education.
Notwithstanding this, of marked interest was the acknowledgement brought
out in 1977 to the effect that learning through a mother tongue was
impracticable in multi-lingual societies like the Zambian society.

However, ‘Focus on Learning’, a policy document done in 1991 and adopted by
the government in 1992, stated that the country needed to adopt the major
Zambian languages as the basic languages of education from grade one to
four.
But no effort was made to implement this policy until 1995. This was in
spite of several studies that were being undertaken to show that children
were acquiring higher literacy levels when taught in vernacular.

Calls for the use of local languages have continued to heighten in the last
couple of years and so today, the government through the Ministry of
Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education has decided it
is time such recommendations and studies were put into effect and introduce
the use of ‘familiar languages’ as a medium of instruction from grade one
to four.
But there definitely are other factors that one supposes the government
needs to consider which in our situation can work against the intentions
and hopes for better proficiency in literacy which, it is being argued, can
be attained only through the use of familiar language as a medium of
instruction in early years of primary schools in Zambia.

The road to achieving improved literacy and generally higher education
attainment levels is not as plain as that, unfortunately.

On the question of ‘familiar language’, the term ‘familiar’ is familiar to
who? The child? Is it not a false assumption that if a child is in a
predominantly Cinyanga-speaking area, then the child is presumed to be
‘familiar’ with Cinyanja?
Even in a place like Lusaka, despite evidence suggesting that Cinyanja is
no longer the prime language of communication, there is a considerable
number of grade one pupils who are not ‘familiar’ with Cinyanja.

There are several teachers teaching in government schools who themselves
seriously struggle to functionally use the ‘familiar’ language. Testaments
have been made by the teachers how they just fail to handle the ‘familiar’
language.
They reluctantly use the existing scheme available in schools and instead
of teaching lessons daily, some of them do it once a week.

How can a Namwanga or Lungu child, be regarded as being familiar to
Icibemba?
The argument for adopting familiar languages as languages of instruction in
schools can be well supported by studies undertaken in Zambia as well as
other parts of the world.

But it must be quickly pointed out that Zambia, as a society, has a history
of its own imbedded challenges in so far as materials provision is
concerned. Schools have been grappling to teach literacy using reading kits
that are not enough, are depleted and simply serve very little purpose.

Our capacity to allocate enough money for schools to be sufficiently
stocked just does not seem to be there. This column does not believe that
there will be sufficient reading materials for teachers to effectively and
efficiently deliver even the new curriculum.

And it must be pointed out that a large part of student underachievement is
not because instruction is in a foreign language (English) but rather
because of factors that impede progress in learning.

It is not the use of a ‘familiar’ language, which will instantly make
children become brilliant in learning science. Learning materials are key.

High mathematics skills will not be attained in the state of resource
bankruptcy, which schools are in. Unless there are sufficient reading
materials, children cannot be expected to become critical thinkers.
Distributing to schools one or two core reading texts in a ‘familiar’
language will not yield much. Teaching language, or any subject for that
matter in a school, is not like waving a magic wand.
There is more that needs to be attended to by educational planners and
schools.
To argue that district resource centres are well resourced for teachers to
use materials from there is like asking schools to rely on the town main
library.
Even a school library only plays a supportive function to teaching and
learning. No resource centre in Zambia is resourced well enough to cater
for the demands from each school in the zone or locality.

That is simply a far cry in the dark. Resource centres in practical terms
serve the purpose of, among others, centralising resources, which are not
in sufficient quantities.

Otherwise, if those resources were in sufficient numbers, teachers could be
saved the trouble of trekking to a resource centre to go and salvage some
obsolete material. Schools which use resource centres are schools whose
resource levels are a sad story.

And even if a teacher uses a ‘familiar’ language, very little can be learnt
by children in a class of 60 or more, where children have to share limited
reading texts; in a situation where school starts at 07:00 hours and ends
at 09:30 hours!
Successes in language and literacy will be enhanced with longer hours of
contact with that particular language. Most children will be exposed to the
‘familiar’ language only for the few hours that they will be in school
because the language being used in the home is not the ‘familiar’ language.

That is the truth in majority cases. There has to be efforts by schools and
the relevant ministry to make parents appreciate the value of, and embrace
this ‘familiar’ language.

For a teachers’ union official to ask teachers to ‘deal with the language
issue’ once they find themselves in an ‘unfamiliar language area’ is a very
easy way of avoiding to confront the dilemma.

And by the way, what happens at grade five when the children, all of a
sudden are challenged with subjects being taught in English? They will
encounter the same difficulties that are faced by some of the grade eight
children when they get to St. Clement’s Secondary School or Hillcrest after
they had spent seven years learning through ‘a familiar language’ in a
school on Chilubi Island or the Gwembe valley. It will be a real struggle!

This column takes recognition of the fact that top private schools in the
country are not bound by this decree. Do any children of the curriculum
designers and policy-makers at the Ministry of Education, Science,
Vocational Training and Early Education attend these schools which are
being asked to use ‘familiar’ languages?

Which schools do children of professors and other researchers attend? Do
they use the ‘familiar’ language with their children in the home?
Whatever the case, what is of essence is that schools need to have willing
and able teachers, with sufficient levels of teaching and learning
resources, and a learning and teaching environment which motivates both the
teacher and the learner.

It then may not really matter much which language is used for instruction –
familiar or unfamiliar!

http://daily-mail.co.zm/blog/2014/01/17/the-familiar-language-debate-issues/

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
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)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20140117/ba03933e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list