Advocacy Brief: Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls

8/14/2019 Advocacy Brief: Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls

1/13


2/13

Mother Tongue-based Teaching and

Education forGirls

Advocacy Brief

UNESCO Bangkok


3/13

Mother tongue-based teaching and education or girls: advocacy brie . Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2005.

10 p.

Running title: Advocacy brief on Mother Tongue-basedTeaching and Education for Girls

1. Girls education. 2. Mother tongue instruction. 3. Bilingual education.4. Basic education. 5. Educationally disadvantaged.6. Educational opportunities. I. Title.

ISBN 92-9223-058-1

UNESCO 2005

Published by theUNESCO Asia and Paci c Regional Bureau for Education920 Sukhumvit Road., PrakanongBangkok 10110, Thailand

Printed in Thailand

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publicationdo not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCOconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning its frontiers or boundaries.


4/13

Advocacy Brief on Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls

Language and girls schooling

Basic education is seen as the bestmeans for improving conditions for poorand rural populations, disadvantaged

social groups, and females, in general.One of the agreed goals of the DakarFramework for Action is to ensure that by

2015 all children, especially girls, children in di fcult circumstances, and children

rom ethnic minorities, have access tocomplete ree and compulsory primary education o good quality . Another goalcalls for higher literacy rates, particularly

among women . All countries havebeen given a clear mandate to removebarriers to progress for girls and women.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest obstaclesto Education for All remains in place: theuse of foreign languages for teaching andlearning.

The Asia-Paci c region is characterizedby rich ethnic, cultural and linguisticdiversity. Papua New Guinea, forexample, has about 800 languages,Indonesia has 650 and India has 380.In this context, children who have anopportunity to learn through their mother

tongue or home language have the bestchance of understanding what is taught,making the connection between thespoken and written word and participatingin their own learning. Yet, many othersmust struggle to learn through a foreignlanguage or language variety that is nottheir own. Forcing children to learn a newlanguage before they can learn anythingelse creates an educational handicapthat should not exist. The handicap may

be overcome in middle-class or eliteconditions, but it grows exponentiallywhen it intersects with poverty, hunger,disability, remote rural conditions, socialmarginality -- or simply being born female.

Understanding the conditions underwhich marginalized populations live isa crucial rst step towards designing aschool system that works on their behalf.There are strong connections betweenethno-linguistic background, girlsschool participation, and educationalopportunities in Asia and throughoutthe world. An exploration of theseconnections reveals strategies thatpolicy makers, education advocates and

practitioners may follow to improve thesituation for girls and women. The guidingprinciple is to adopt an appropriate schoollanguage, which makes a differencefor girls even more than it does for alldisadvantaged learners.

Language and marginality

The linguistic boundaries between richand poor are usually quite clear. Theelite speak the language of education,governance and other of cial domains,while marginalized groups speaklanguages or dialects that are notvalued or even recognized outside theircommunities. These groups are oftencalled linguistic minorities, but theterm may be deceiving. For example,such groups outnumber speakers of thedominant language in countries like Lao

Mother Tongue-basedTeaching and Education

for Girls


5/13


PDR, where mother tongue speakersof Lao comprise between 35 and 45percent of the population. Further, ethnicminorities in China may represent only8 percent of the population, but theynumber close to 100 million people.Economic activities and language areinterrelated in these contexts. Over50 percent of citizens of low-incomecountries work in the informal sector,doing small trading or bartering locally.These activities do not usually exposeeither children or adults to the dominantof cial language that would help themin school. The younger and moredisadvantaged people are, the morelikely it is that the home language willprovide the most viable means of accessto education and to a more productivefuture. This does not mean that peopledo not want to learn of cial languages;on the contrary, they are acutely aware oftheir economic importance. They are alsoaware that schools are not doing a good

job of teaching these languages.

A linguistic mismatch between schooland community creates problems inboth access to school services and inthe quality of those services. First, it isdif cult for families to send children toschool if that school does not adequatelycommunicate regarding enrolmentprocedures, dates and times, and whatis to be taught. Second, only some ofthose who attend school will be able tolearn the new language well enough tounderstand instruction and pass to higherlevels. Finally, constant and well-foundedfear of failure may cause learners to havelow aspirations for their own educationalachievement and, thus, participateunwittingly in a vicious circle of dropoutand failure. The observable symptoms ofusing a foreign language of instruction arehigh repetition, failure and dropout rates- all of which disproportionately affectmarginalized populations in rural areasand, particularly, girls.

Girls, marginality and language

In 1993, linguistic researcher Corsonfound that the three groups most affectedby unjust language policies and planningin education are women and girls, thepoor, and groups with languages notrepresented in formal structures. Theinjustice is clearly greatest for thosewho experience all three conditionssimultaneously. Gender research hasdemonstrated that unless girls andwomen are working in markets orfactories, they are much less likely thanboys and men to be exposed to an of ciallanguage because their lives are moreoften restricted to the home and familywhere the local language is spoken.This means that girls are less likely thanboys to understand school instruction.Unfortunately, this difference goesunnoticed because girls are given feweropportunities to speak and are expectedto perform less well than boys.

Indeed, researchers in bilingual educationin Africa and Latin America have foundthat girls who learn in familiar languagesstay in school longer, are more likely tobe identi ed as good students, do betteron achievement tests, and repeat gradesless often than girls who do not get homelanguage instruction. This indicates thata change in the language of teaching andlearning can greatly improve opportunitiesfor educational access and attainment forfemale students.

Mother tongue-based bilingualeducation

Bilingual education starts with thelearners knowledge and experiences bydeveloping reading, writing and thinkingskills in the mother tongue or homelanguage (L1), while teaching the secondor foreign language (L2) as a subject. Iftime is taken to build second languageskills based on a solid foundation in the

rst language, the results can be high-level bilingualism and biliteracy, as wide-


6/13


scale longitudinal research in the northhas demonstrated. A strong bilingualmodel such as this provides long-termbene ts like higher self-esteem, greaterself-con dence, and higher aspirations forschooling and life.

Some countries in the Asia-Paci c regionhave taken steps to adapt to the languageor languages of the learner. In PapuaNew Guinea, some community schoolsteach in the mother tongue for the rstthree years, while others use Tok Pisin, aregional lingua franca. Other programmesuse the L2 for much of the instruction,but reserve a place for the L1 and localknowledge. This is the case in parts ofViet Nam, where the L1 is taught as asubject, or in Indonesia, where part ofthe day is set aside for local curriculum.Unfortunately, few programmes promotestrong language and literacy skills inthe home language, whether due tomisunderstanding of the learning theoryor failure to prioritize school languagepolicy. Even some use of the L1 promoteslearning and self-esteem, but at this time,the biggest bene ts of schooling go toboys and girls who speak the languagethat dominates the society.

Obstacles to girls educationand strategies to address them

A surprising number of obstacles togirls school participation are reportedworldwide by poor and even by somericher countries. While these aregeneralizations that can not apply to allcontexts or countries, some of the mostcommon are the following:

Family decisions: Families with limitedresources tend to send their sons toschool and use their daughters forhousehold tasks or small trading tosupport the family. There may be culturaland/or religious biases against formaleducation for girls, and early marriagemakes it dif cult for girls to study.

School-based conditions: Girls arevulnerable to sexual exploitation by maleteachers and students, especially wherethere are long distances between homeand school. Schools that lack latrines donot meet privacy needs. Teachers tend toperceive girls as less academically ablethan boys, which may lead to derisionin class. Furthermore, they often givegirls domestic tasks such as cleaningclassrooms and carrying water for theothers.

Girls own attitudes and experiences: Girls become exhausted from balancinghousehold tasks with attending schooland studying. They may drop out due tolack of female role models, inability tounderstand instruction, low self-esteem,or feeling that the curriculum is notrelevant to their needs or interests.

In the Asia-Paci c region, there are someadditional considerations:

Greater vulnerability of girls fromfemale-headed householdsEngagement of female children inwage labor, particularly in factories, aswell as in the sex industryRelative irrelevance of formaleducation in preparing learners forproductive work in the formal orinformal sectors

All of these conditions work against basiceducation for girls, particularly those frompoor and otherwise marginalized groups.There is a need for workable strategiesin the Asia-Paci c region that respondappropriately to each context. Two typesof strategies have achieved positiveresults thus far:

1. Strategies that attempt to overcometraditional reluctance to send girlsto school by addressing marriagepractices, amily values, emalerole models, and school conditions. Incentive programmes in Bangladesh,for example, have increased femaleenrolment by giving food or monthlystipends in exchange for regular school


7/13


attendance and agreement not to marrybefore age 18. Schools in Bangladeshhave experimented with shorter days,seasonal sessions and running in shiftsto allow for girls to complete housework.The Bangladesh Rural AdvancementCommittee (BRAC) programme hasincreased female enrolment signi cantlyby offering inexpensive basic schooling topoor children and by allocating 70 percentof their openings to girls.

2. Strategies that attempt to bring aboutgirl- riendly attitudes and practices,especially through teacher trainingand hiring practices. One example is totrain and employ more female teachers,requiring an improvement of physicalconditions at teacher training institutionsand schools, themselves. Anotherexample is hiring female communitymembers, a BRAC strategy. A UNICEFproject in Viet Nam is attempting to targetvulnerable populations by incorporatingstrategies for teaching multi-gradeclassrooms, mother tongue-basedteaching and gender awareness intoteacher training.

How mother tongue-basedlearning breaks down barriersto girls

How can a change in school languagepolicy break down barriers to girls andcomplement the strategies mentionedabove?

The following are some claims regardingpositive effects of mother tongue use ongirls school participation. Some claimsare backed by solid evidence, whileothers are hypothesized on the basisof what is known, with examples fromthe Asia-Paci c region where they areavailable.

More girls enroll in school when theycan learn in a language that is familiarto them. Girls and their families maybe less apprehensive about attending aschool that uses their language and, by

association, a familiar culture and set ofvalues. Teachers in bilingual programmesspeak to students and their familiesin the L1, increasing family accessto information about enrolment andschooling processes.

Use of the home language in schoolincreases parent participation andin uence. Improved communicationallows parents to participate in schoolactivities and decision-making so thatschools respond more to communityneeds and values. The resultingcurriculum may better meet local needsso that schooling becomes more relevantfor girls.

Teachers from the same linguistic andcultural communities as their studentsare less likely to exploit female students.Teachers who interact socially withstudents families are potentially moretrustworthy and/or more subject to socialcontrol, reducing the risk that they willabuse girls sexually or otherwise.

The above claims are substantiatedby worldwide studies documentingparent support for bilingual primaryprogrammes, as well as by parentcon dence in bilingual teachers. In the

Asia-Paci c region, mother tongue-based programmes promoted by NGOsare made possible by high levels ofcommunity participation in L1 materialsproduction and in school decision-making. In Davao del Norte, Philippines,for example, women in a mother tongue-based literacy project asked that theirchildren be taught instead, resulting in a

joint pre-school/adult class. Although theydid not mention girls speci cally, parentsin PNG were reportedly pleased that theirchildren came out of Tok Ples schoolswith an ability to function in their ownlanguage and an appreciation of their ownculture, both of which were underminedby the national school system.

Girls in bilingual classes stay in schoollonger. Mother tongue-based schoolingmakes the home-school transition easier


8/13


and, since girls have less exposure tothe second language, they feel morecomfortable speaking and learning in theL1. They are more likely to enjoy school,experience success, and perceive thatschooling is relevant, which will give themthe skills and con dence to continue theirschool careers.

Girls learn better and can demonstratetheir learning in the mother tongue. Beingable to use a familiar language in classallows girls to express the range of theirthoughts and experiences, as well asdemonstrate what they have learned. Inthis way, teachers can make more realisticassessments of their capabilities andteach by building on what they know,instead of requiring them to communicatein a language they do not understand.

Bilingual teachers treat girls more fairlyin the learning process. Because girlscan communicate as freely as boys in thehome language, teachers see that girlsare more capable than they may havethought previously. Their expectationsbecome more optimistic, and they aremore likely to assist girls in their learning,reducing repetition and failure rates.

These claims are related to pedagogicaland affective factors that in uence schoolsuccess and retention. There is evidencefrom African experiences that girls inbilingual programmes repeat grades lessoften and stay in school longer than girlsand boys in dominant language schools.Similarly, bilingual schools in PNG havereported higher enrolment, lower dropout,and a higher proportion of girls thanin other schools. The key seems to bereplacing recitation and rote learning withgreater communication and participation,a process which is not guaranteed, but isfacilitated by using the L1.

More women may become teachers and,thus, role models for girls. If women aremost comfortable and skillful at speakinglocal languages due to their homeexperiences, they are more likely to enrollin teacher education for mother tongue-

based programmes, especially if they areable to return to their home communitiesto work. If bilingual schools attract womenfrom rural and previously marginalizedgroups, girls will have women likethemselves as role models.

The idea of recruiting female bilingualteachers was taken up by an NGOin Bolivia, which has developed aninnovative pedagogical secondaryschool programme for indigenousgirls. This programme prepares themto teach in the mother tongue in theirhome communities, and partially solvesthe problem of lling posts in remoteareas. A similar project for marginalizedgirls in Rajasthan, India has beensuccessful in increasing the proportionof trained female teachers from thestudents communities by creatingspecial residential training schools forwomen, though it did not speci callytarget language of instruction. Neitherproject has provided teacher trainingthrough of cial structures, but both haveallowed women from marginalized groupsunprecedented access to training andhigher pro le positions.

Promoting change

There are already powerful pedagogicaland social justi cations for using themother tongue in school, but the factthat mother tongue use is linked toimprovements in girls participationshould call attention to its potential formeeting Education for All goals. To makethese links more solid, researchers needto collect data on school enrolment,

repetition, dropout, and graduationthat clearly differentiates between girlsand boys. There should also be moredescriptive studies of peoples values,attitudes and opinions in terms of genderand language.

How can the home language be broughtinto schools that have been dominatedby another language for so long?


9/13


Schooling systems must change alongwith attitudes to improve educationalopportunities for female learners. Thefollowing are some foot in the doorstrategies that are likely to promoteawareness and encourage participantsto re-evaluate unfair schooling practices.When these measures lead to more activeparticipation of all disadvantaged childrenand especially girls, space may be madefor more far-reaching reform:

Authorize oral use o the mother tonguein the classroom, especially where it hastraditionally been prohibited. This willtake away some of the stigma associatedwith the mother tongue and lead the wayfor more systematic use of both rst andsecond languages.

Organize teacher placement so thatteachers are placed in communitieswhose languages they share. This islikely to improve the opportunities forclassroom communication, along withincreasing the number of female teachersbecause they can stay in or near theirhome communities.

Use the mother tongue or preschoolteaching, adult literacy, and other non-

ormal education. It may be easier tochange the language of teaching in lessformal arenas, after which it is a logicalextension to change formal primary andsecondary levels.

Provide in-service training or teachers infrst and second language development. These are themes that should be taughtwherever there is linguistic diversity,and teachers need to understand thetheories and methods underlying bilingualprogrammes before they can effectivelyimplement such teaching.

Add the study o mother tongue asa discipline to the curriculum. Thisinvolves no of cial change in the mediumof instruction, but gives learners literacysupport in their rst language.

Work with teachers and communitiesto operationalize local curriculumcomponents o school programmes.In school systems that have already setaside time for local curriculum, teachersneed strategies for involving communitymembers and including local language,

culture and knowledge.

Conclusion

Using the mother tongue for teachingand learning does not in itself equalizeopportunities for female learners, butthere are clear indications that it improvesconditions for all learners, and especiallygirls. Designing a school system thatrecognizes the language, culture andcompetence of the learner is an importantstep towards providing Education for

All. Bringing the home language intoschools means that formal learning is nolonger just for the dominant groups, butfor all children. Such a change promisesto dramatically improve education forrural, marginalized, ethnic and linguisticminority children and, particularly, for girls.


10/13


Re erences

Ahai, N. & Bopp, M. (1993) Missing Links:Literacy, Awareness and Development

in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby:National Research Institute of Papua NewGuinea.

Arends-Kuenning, M and Amin, S.(2004) School Incentive Programmesand Childrens Activities: The Case ofBangladesh, Comparative EducationReview . No. 48:3, pp. 295-317.

Baker, C. (2001) Third Edition.Foundations o Bilingual Education andBilingualism . Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Benson, C. (2002a) Real and PotentialBene ts of Bilingual Programmes inDeveloping Countries, International

Journal o Bilingual Education andBilingualism . No. 5 (6), pp. 303-317.

Benson, C. (2002b) Bilingual Educationin Africa: An exploration of encouragingconnections between language and girlsschooling, in Melin, Mia (ed) Education

A Way out o Poverty? Researchpresentations at the Poverty Conference2001. New Education DivisionDocuments No. 12. Stockholm: Sida.

Bruthiaux, P. (2002) Hold Your Courses:Language education, language choice,and economic development, TESOLQuarterly . No. 36 (3), pp. 275-296.

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).(2001) Expanding EducationalOpportunity in inguistically DiverseSocieties . Principal author NadineDutcher, with many others. WashingtonDC: CAL.

Chaze, L. (1999) The Peoples o Laos:Rural and Ethnic Diversities . Bangkok:White Lotus.

Chowdhury, K. (Nov. 1993) Barriersand Solutions to Closing the GenderGap, Human Resources Development

and Operations Policy , No. 18. HROdissemination notes found at www.worldbank.org. Washington: World Bank.

Corson, D. (1993) Language, Minority Education and Gender: LinkingSocial Justice and Power . Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2001) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in theCrossfre . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Derbyshire, H. (April 2002) Gender Manual: A Practical Guide or Development Policy Makers andPractitioners . London: DFID.

Grimes, B. (ed) (2000) Ethnologue:Languages o the World . 14th Edition.Dallas: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com/web.asp

Hovens, M. (2002) Bilingual Educationin West Africa: Does it work? inInternational Journal o BilingualEducation and Bilingualism . No. 5 (5), pp.249-266.

Hovens, M. (2003) Enseignement primaire bilingue: Deux expriences ouest- a ricaines . [Primary bilingual instruction:Two West African experiences.] Niamey:

Albasa.

Kane, E. (1995) Seeing or Yoursel :Research Handbook or Girls Education

in A rica. Washington DC: World Bank.

King, K. & Benson, C. (2003) IndigenousLanguage Education in Bolivia andEcuador: Contexts, changes andchallenges, in Tollefson, Jim & Tsui, Amy(eds) Medium o Instruction Policies:Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 241-261.

Klaus, D. (2003) The Use of IndigenousLanguages in Early Basic Educationin Papua New Guinea: A model forelsewhere? in Languages and Education No. 17 (2), pp. 105-111.


11/13


Kosonen, K. (2004) Language inEducation Policy and Practice inVietnam, a commissioned study.Hanoi: UNICEF.

Kosonen, Kimmo (2005) Education inLocal Languages: Policy and practice inSoutheast Asia, in First Languages First:Community-Based Literacy Programmes

or Minority Language Contexts in Asia .Bangkok: UNESCO.

Markee, N. (2002) Language inDevelopment: Questions of Theory,Questions of Practice, TESOL Quarterly No. 36 (3), pp. 265-274.

Nussbaum, M. (2003) WomensEducation: A global challenge, Journal o Women in Culture and Society, No. 29: 2,pp. 325-355.

OGara, C. & Kendall, N. (1996) BeyondEnrollment: A handbook or improving

girls experiences in primary classrooms .Research conducted for the AdvancingBasic Education and Literacy (ABEL2)consortium, Washington DC: Creative

Associates International.

Ramachandran, V. & Sethi, H. (2001)Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Project: AnOverall Appraisal, New EducationDivision Documents No. 7 . Stockholm:Sida.

Rowe, K. & Burch eld, S. (Jan. 2000)Baseline Report: Year 1 Nepal . Boston:World Education. Website address: www.worlded.org/asia/nepal_12_19_02.pdf

Sichra, I. (1992) In orme fnal deevaluacin. Test de salida primer grado--

rea andina-- del Proyecto de EducacinBilinge (PEIB) . [Final evaluation report.First grade leaving test-- Andean region-- of the Bilingual Intercultural EducationProject (PEIB).] Cochabamba, Bolivia:PEIB/Ministerio de Educacin.

Siegel, J. (March 1997) Using a PidginLanguage in Formal Education: Help orhindrance? in Applied Linguistics , No.18:1, pp. 86-100.

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002) A NationalStudy o School E ectiveness or Language Minority Students Long-term

Academic Achievement . Santa CruzCA: Center for Research on Education,Diversity and Excellence. Websiteaddress: www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/ llaa/1.1_ nal.html

UNESCO. (2000a) The Dakar Framework or Action. Education or All: Meeting Our

Collective Commitments . Dakar: WorldEducation Forum.http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/ 001211/121147e.pdf

UNESCO. (2000b) Girls and WomensEducation in Laos . Bangkok: UNESCORegional Of ce for Asia and the Paci c.www.unescobkk.org/education/appeal/ girls&women/laos.pdf


12/13


Author

Carol Benson comes rom the multidisciplinary feldo Comparative and International Education, blending

educational development with linguistics and anthropology.Her research and consulting work ocuses on mother tongue-based education, policy and planning. She is based

at Stockholm University, and currently has projects inEthiopia, Mauritius, Mozambique and South A rica.


13/13