Date: 31/07/2006
Source: Department of Education
Title: Pandor: Language colloquium
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.
Thank you.
Issued by: Department of Education
31 July 2006
Source: Department of Education
Title: Pandor: Language colloquium
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.
Thank you.
Issued by: Department of Education
31 July 2006
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
