Developing Policy for Medium of Instruction and Languages for Education (MILE) in Multilingual Nepal

5th International Conference on Language and Education: Sustainable Development Through Multilingual Education19-21 October 2016 Bangkok, Thailand

1. Introduction and Background Prof. Yogendra Yadava (20 + 10 mins)

2. MLE in Practice: Successful Projects, Weak Synergies?

Dr. Sadananda Kadel (20 + 10 mins)

3. (a) Political Factors (b) Way Forward: A Roadmap for Change?

Amanda Seel (20+10 mins)

1. Background to the StudyStrong rationales for a ‘trilingual’

approach using MTB-MLE

Improved learning, literacy and

cognitive outcomes for disadvantaged

children

Language revitalisation,

multilingualism and an individual,

community and national resource

Equitable, sustainable

development through

empowerment and participation of

marginalised groups

Peace-building and social cohesion through more

equitable access to-and benefits of-quality relevant

education

Rationale for the MILE Study • Commitment in principle to ‘tri-lingual’ approach- MT plus Nepali

plus English (i.e. 2-3 languages for each child); through Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)

• Whilst mapping the language situation onto these constitutional and legal provisions they seem to be conducive to multilingual approaches.

• However, there has been a lack of any more explicit plan and policy to implement them.

• Vague stipulations have been open to interpretation. Similarly, the constitutional provision regarding the use of mother tongues in education is ambiguous: as a medium or a subject of instruction?

• 2015 marked the conclusion of the School Sector Reform Programme, which included some MLE pilots, development of a National Early Grade Reading Programme and progress on equity and inclusive education strategies. Developing the sequel School Sector Development Programme (SSDP) provided opportunity to develop a more coherent, explicit and comprehensive national policy.

• Hence, the study on Medium of Instruction and Languages for Education (MILE) which took place Feb-June 2015 to inform that policy

• Nepal signatory to several International Rights Frameworks with commitments to use of MTs in basic education

• Prior to 1990: Nepal’s national education system: based on the concept of ‘One Nation, One Language’, – Nepali identified as the national and official language as well as

medium and subject of education.• After 1990: the reinstatement of multi-party democracy all mother

tongues spoken in Nepal constitutionally recognized as ‘national languages’

• though Nepali alone has been practically used as the ‘official language.’

Rights and Legal Frameworks for Language in Education

Language in education has been further addressed through variousgovernment Acts:• Report of National Language Policy Recommendation

Commission’s (1994) recommendations:– ‘transitional multilingual education’ using the mother tongue

as medium of instruction in ‘schools with monolingual context’gradually switching to Nepali as LWC first and then to Englishas an international language

– ‘Nepali as the MoI in ‘schools with predominantly multilingualcontext’.

– Non-formal education in MT• Local Self-Government Act (1998):

– the local Village Development Committees and municipalitiesresponsible for supporting schools /communities to manageprimary education in the mother tongue.

• Seventh Amendment (2001) to the Education Act• EFA Goal 7: ensuring the right of indigenous people and

linguistic minorities to basic and primary education through mother tongue

– Nepali and mother tongues as MoI at the primary level

Constitution of Nepal (2015)– 7 federal provinces with their own official languages

along with Nepali – upholds rights to education in MT and recognises all the

mother tongues spoken in Nepal as its national languages• Formation of Language Commission

– as a constitutional body to recommend the use of mother tongues for use in education on the basis of their feasibility apart from other linguistic measures

Sociolinguistic complexityi. the Census enumerations of languages

44 (1952/54), 36 (1961), 17 (1971), 18 (1981), 31 (1991), 92 (2001), 123 (2011)ii. 140 (Noonan 2005)iii. 124 (Ethnologue 2012)

– ReasonEthnocultural and linguistic awareness following the democratic movements in Nepal vis-à-vis assimilation

Map: Languages of Nepal

11

Genetic affiliations– four language families

• Indo-European, • Sino-Tibetan, • Austro-Asiatic, • Dravidian,

– a language isolate consisting of a single language without any genetic relationship with other languages, e.g. Kusunda.

– Most of these languages belong to two language families:• Indo-European – Indo-Aryan - nearly 82.06 % • Sino-Tibetan –Tibeto-Burman – 17.3 %

– Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian – marginalized- less than 1%– Kusunda : just 28 speakers.

i. ‘major’ languages - 19 – almost 96%. ii. ‘minor’ languages -104 – 4%

12

Language and ethnicity❖ 125 castes and indigenous groups speak more

than 123 languages as their mother tongues (CBS2011).

❖ Relation:i. one-to-one relation, e.g. Rauteii. one-to-many relation, e.g. Nepaliiii. many-to-one, Newar

- Cultural variations

Implications of sociolinguistic factors for education

• Nepali language is an LWC and most widely used MoI– the largest number of MT speakers = 46.64%(almost 12 million

speakers) – 32.77% second-language speakers– Understood by total = 79.41% – Official status– Rich and long tradition of written literature– Justifiably used as MoI in school education➢ But not evenly distributed:

Mountains Hills Tarai Total4.16 27.29 13.19 44.64

• A group of languages are readily amenable for use as MoI in the early years (as an MT-base, including literacy): • 10 Indo-Aryan and 8 Tibeto-Burmese languages >100,000

speakers • Cross-border languages:

– smaller but geographically concentrated groups with their ‘kin states’ (Gorter 2007)

– amenable to language use in education, e.g. Limbu, Tamang, Maithili, Bhojpuri, etc. with support from their kin states

• The CDC and other agencies have developed MT-based reading materials in 23 languages

– (but to differing points e.g. G1+2 only, G1-3, G1-5) as an optional subject

– Devanagari script adapted• Nepali Sign Language developed and used by 20,000 people, but

has 200,000 potential users

• A large group of languages will require creative approaches to be used as MoIs – 74 < 10,000 speakers– many with oral (not literate) traditions– linguistically heterogeneous school catchment communities

(sometimes linked to migration) – language shift (linked to urbanization, migration, schooling)– Some are being supported through digitized language

documentation initiatives including lexicon, grammar, reading materials, script, e.g. Baram

• There are relatively few fluent speakers of English – 2000 MT speakers– 3% speak English as L2– Gender (male) and urban biases in English language skills and

opportunities thus the sociolinguistic data gives no grounds for contemplating use of English as an MoI in the early years, especially in rural areas

Please see handout for further sociolinguistic information.

THANK YOU! Any Questions or Comments?

2. MLE in practice: Successful Projects, Weak Synergies?

The Sample Districts and SchoolsDevelopment RegionEcological Zone

Far-West Mid-West West Central Eastern

Mountains Rasuwa(4 schools)

Hills Dadeldhura(2 schools)

Palpa(2 schools)Tanahaun (1 school)

Kathmandu valley(7 schools)

Dhankuta(1 school)

Tarai Kanchanpur(1 school)

Bardiya (1 school)Banke (1 school)

Kapilvastu (2 schools)

Dhanusha (1 school)

Jhapa (1 school)Sunsari (1 school)

Criteria for Field Research / Sample

• Geographical coverage: 3 ecological belts and 5 development regions• Linguistic coverage: 4 language families, major and minor languages,

some endangered languages, different kinds of community language contexts (homogeneous, mix, varieties of issues and initiatives)

• School coverage: 1. Community schools 2. Institutional (private English MoI) 3. MTB-MLE pilot schools (Finland supported program) and other MLE

initiatives4. Faith based schools – Gumba, Gurukul, Madrasa, and Vihar5. Schools that included users of Nepali Sign Language and Braille scripts6. Preprimary/ECED, primary , lower secondary, secondary and higher

secondary

Some Examples of Status of Medium of Instruction in Early Grades Community Schools

District School School types MoI Previously MoI Current

Jhapa Rastriya Ekata P.Haldibari

Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Santhal and Rajbanshi

English

Dhankuta Deurali LS, Santang Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Athpariya Nepali (Athpariya-subject)

Sunsari Sharada P., Simariya Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Uranw, Maithili and Tharu

Uranw, Maithili and Tharu

Rasuwa Bhinsen LS, Thulo Bharkhu

Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Tamang Tamang (G-1)Subject (G-2+)

Saraswai LS, Thade Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Tamang Tamang (G-1)Subject (G-2+)

Palpa Nawa Jagriti P., Chidipani

Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Magar Magar

Kanchanpur Rastriya LS Community (MTB MLE pilot)

Rana Tharu Rana Tharu

Dadeldhura Bhumiraj P., Bagchaur Community Doteli English

Tanahun Nirmal HS, Damauli Community Nepali English

‘English MoI Schools’ (Private)

Sunshine English Boarding School, Dumre, Palpa

Pathshala Nepal Private Boarding School , Lalitpur

Grade English Nepali English Nepali

Nursery 25% 75% - -

Lower KG 50% 50% - -

Upper KG 75% 25% - -

Grade 1 80% 20% 40% 60%

Grade 2 90% 10% 50% 50%

Grade 3 95% 5% 70% 30%

Grade 4 95% 5% 80% 20%

Grade 5 100% 0% 95% 5%

Successes of MTB-MLE Programs• Positive impact on attendance and retention (no

gap between home and school language, child-friendly environment)

• Positive impact on learning (MT MoI, locally prepared textbooks, regularity, interactive teaching-learning activities, better performance)

• Positive impact on sense of identity and confidence

• Increased understanding of importance of MT on the part of parents and communities

• Increased capacity of teachers, headteachers and local leaders to implement MLE

• Increased availability of MT materials and locally adapted curricula and capacity to develop these as per local socio-cultural context

• Establishment of MLE sub-committees at the district and school levels and a national Steering Committee

• MLE Implementation Guidelines were developed in 2009 to guide implementation

Major Technical Challenges for MTB-MLE Programs

• MTB-MLE initiatives (including the MTB-MLE Implementation Guidelines) focus more on MTB than MLE (effective support to the full sequence of L1, L2 and L3). It has not been clear what should be the approach in schools with many MTs.

• The paucity of locally developed MT curricula, textbooks, and supplementary materials and mechanisms/ capacity to develop these remains a major constraint.

• In some cases it has been difficult to resolve issues around orthography

• Language background of teachers has not been considered as a criterion while recruiting and deploying them.

‘English-medium’ schools are also struggling…

• Inappropriate sequencing (e.g. English before Nepali)• No thought to sequencing children experience when moving

between levels and within school clusters • Many teachers in ‘English-medium’ schools struggled to hold a

basic conversation in English (e.g. in the study interviews)• Even those teachers who do speak English nevertheless

reported that they struggle to use English as an MoI• Districts give permission for the switch but then find it

impossible to train all teachers to a sufficient standard, or to provide adequate resources

• A few schools have made a transparent switch back to Nepali MoI, many more seem to be implementing a confused, mixed approach under the ‘English-medium’ label.

Weak Synergies Underpin Shortcomings in Language Practices

• Legal provisions on MLE policy and practice are not explicit and consistent

• Sectoral directives have likewise been inconsistent- MoE at the same time supporting MTB-MLE and relegating decisions on MoI to district

• Limited support to district level capacity building –misunderstandings and lack of capacity to implement MLE at district levels

• Lack of periodic studies on the existing use of languages in education and learning competencies of children

• Incomplete integration of MLE into sector planning MLE pilots were supported as a separate project, not linked to other policy thrusts of the (previous) sector program (e.g. to curriculum and pedagogy development, school-based management, etc.)

• Inadequate funding quantity and duration- only 2.5 years, insufficient to establish a new language and pedagogic approach

• EMIS lacks MT and L2 specific information of children and teachers, and language issues in education are not adequately addressed in the plans/documents such as District Education Plan (DEP) and School Improvement Plan (SIP).

• Broader ‘political economy’ constraints- coming next!

THANK YOU! Any Questions or Comments?

3a. The Political Economy of Language and Education Dynamics at Work

Economic dynamics•Poverty – education viewed in•terms of short term economic gain •Vulnerable livelihoods •Migration/ overseas labour•Exacerbated by natural disaster/ environmental change

Political dynamics •Political groupings around ethnic, linguistic and religious identities •Commitments to federalism •Demands for inclusion and equity-essential for peace and cohesion

Education sector governance dynamics •Gaps in legislation related to language in education •Limited regulation of private education •Limited structures for citizen participation and dialogue on the goals and content of

education •District Education Offices respond more to local political constituencies than MoE•Politicized government school committees and teachers

Social dynamics •Experience of relative •poverty (or relative wealth) •Experience of caste and •ethnic discrimination/ social exclusion •(or relative privilege) •Social insecurity and status preoccupation

Debates around the role of Nepali vis-a-vis other mother tongue languages

Supporting Wider Use of MTs:•Reassertion of ethnic, linguistic and religious identities •Demands for inclusion and equity-essential for peace and cohesion •Commitments to federalism

Supporting Maintenance of Nepali as sole MoI•Role of a unifying language •Familiarity/ default •Fears of loss of privilege •Fears of new kinds of dominance on part of smaller population groups

The demand for English as an MoIWe demand English as an MoI in primary schools!

•English will help children work in tourism•English is essential for avoiding exploitation in the labour market •English is a clear asset of the wealthy and successful •English is the MoI of higher prestige private schools and those

chilren do well •Children can learn more quickly when they are younger •How can we be sure our children will still be in school to learn

English at the secondary level? •Children can learn Nepali later, it is all around them•They can learn and speak their MT at home

The Switch to English as MoI• Strong demand• Districts under pressure from local constituencies • Officials’ own experience is of effective private English MoI

schools in the towns• Headteachers fear loss of pupils to private English MoI

schools • Result: high rate of switching to English MoI in primary

schools and even KG/ ECD!

3b. A Roadmap For Change1. Realising a ‘Trilingual Approach • Nuanced approach to the MT base and Nepali as L2 -typology of

school catchments- principle of as much MT as possible for as long as possible!

Catchment MT base Nepali

Homogenous Nepali Nepali is MT and MoI

Homogenous MT which is ‘MoI ready’

MT used as early grade MoI (and sometimes beyond),

including literacy

Introduced as L2 (becomes MoI in most cases)

Agreement on a number of ‘MoI ready’ MTs

Several MTs used as early grade MoI, including literacy

Introduced as L2

Heterogeneous, lack of consensus, language is not yet

‘MoI-ready’

MTs included through systematic oral approaches

Introduced as L2 and as language for learning to read

• MT is the actual language of the children

• ‘MoI-ready’ is a shifting category- over time more languages/communities to become ‘ready’

• Flexibility regarding timing of sequencing

• ‘Systematic oral use’ implies planned and resourced approach to using MTs orally-across curriculum, to support acquisition of Nepali language, for conceptual development, ideas about literacy

• All teachers should understand and be able to support language and literacy development and respond to individual needs

• Schools’ roles in revitalization of heritage languages

2. Raising the status of English as a subject

• All schools must identify approach to introduction of English as a subject and transition to its use as a Joint MoI or full MoI.

• Incentives for English as a subject

• Disincentives to arbitrary language switching, requirement of schools to demonstrate capacity to use English as MoI

• Measures to ensure that all teachers have basic understanding of language development in the early years and that teachers can develop the necessary skills according to the options selected for the MT base, Nepali and English; as well as respond to individual language-related learning need:– Integration of basic understanding around language, literacy and

MT into all preservice teacher education, ECED facilitator training, other generic teacher training

– Teacher training and support for MT teaching and introduction of Nepali as L2, tailored to specific MTs/districts/ school clusters

– Teacher training and support for English subject teachers– Teacher training for teachers to use English as an MoI– System for appraising teachers’ level of English/ assessing schools’

readiness to use English as MoI

3. Teacher Development

4. Management

• Schools and districts: Measures to support analysis and planning at the district, cluster and school levels, the integration of language factors / issues into SIPs, DEPs, data collection and development of practical, supportive guidance

• Teacher management: Measures within existing plans to ensure that language factors are taken account of, in teacher recruitment and deployment.

• Improvements in Data collection and Monitoring and Evaluation in relation to language issues: Inclusion of sociolinguistic data in EMIS, disaggregation of basic enrolment and attainment data according to language background

5. A comprehensive communications and advocacy strategy

• Mediated dialogue to achieve shared understanding of leaders and policy-makers at different levels

• Structures for systematic and inclusive citizen dialogue- shared vision, trust-building

6. Addressing barriers beyond the education sector

• Multi-sectoral and multi-agency support to revitalization of heritage languages

• Migrant preparation• Reducing livelihoods vulnerability

Progress Since MILE Study Completion

• SSDP (2016/17-2022/23) includes 'languages of education' as one of the strategic priority areas.

• SSDP Theory of Change incorporates contribution of improved ‘MILE’ practices to overall goals for equitable access and ‘equity in quality’.

• Plans for wide dissemination of MILE study report through regional and central levels, with opportunities for discussion and feedback