Bilingual programmes in South Africa

Discussions I this chapter indicated that in many education systems of the African continent, education and language policies do not include strategies for dealing with the language challenges of immigrant children. Problems related to poor language proficiency and programmes developed to deal with them were not evident in the documents that were consulted.

In the South African education system also, I am not aware of any programmes that have been developed by the South African Department of Education to address the language challenges of immigrant learners in South African schools. Policies, such as the Revised National Curriculum Statement’s (RNCS’s) language policy (Department of Education, 2002) and the Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001) appear relevant to the educational needs of learners in the South African schools however, they lack viable instructional guidelines. As a consequence of this deficit, the language policies are only partly implemented (O’Connor & Geiger, 2009: 254).

71

The language policies still reflect the policies that were designed during the apartheid era when the South African education system was divided according to race (White, Coloured, Indian and Black/African). African teachers were professionally trained under the Bantu Education system in order to teach Black children. Many of the Black teachers who were trained in this era are still teaching in the current post-apartheid schools which are now racially integrated (Dalvit, Murray, and Terzoli, 2009: 34). The language policies still subscribe to the additive bilingualism approach which maintains the first language and uses it as a foundation for learning another language (O’Connor & Geiger, 2009: 254).

Although the political climate has changed in the country, the consequences of apartheid education still linger in the education system. Alexander (2013: 9-10) maintains that it is clear that oppressive, exploitative and discriminatory relations are generally always reflected in the language policy and practice, and that the history of humanity is not only the history of socio-economic issues, it is also the history of language. This implies that language policies and practices should be viewed as symptomatic of the country’s political history.

The Language-in-Education Policy of 1997 (South African Government, 1997: 1) states that, “The new Language-in-Education policy is conceived of as an integral and necessary aspect of the new government’s strategy of building a non-racial nation in South Africa. It is meant to facilitate communication across the barriers of colour, language and region, while at the same time creating an environment in which respect for languages other than one’s own would be encouraged”. It is, however, not clear how the language barriers of immigrant children would be addressed.

According to the findings of a study conducted by Arends (2012:76), in Gauteng primary schools the teachers indicated that language development is a challenge necessary for social interaction, and that group-work is necessary for improving intergroup relationships and for addressing some of the problems related to diversity. Arends’s findings show that some teachers also see the need to integrate language with psychosocial activities in order to promote positive behaviour among learners. When learners are grouped to work together on an activity, they share language usage and form close relationships.

72

Schools are important for promoting positive social interactions in multicultural societies because social interactions will enable the learners to share their language and cultural knowledge (Arends, 2012: 100). The South African policies on language instruction such as the Language in Education Policy and CAPS, unfortunately, still reflect the bilingualism models of the Western countries. Dalvit et al. (2009:33) say that, “In South Africa, the current policy for English second language speakers has remained virtually unchanged since 1979” and that “it is not very different from the bilingual instruction that was designed for an immigrant child in an English-speaking country such as the U.S.”

The challenge of English as a second language in South African schools is significantly different from that of Western English-speaking countries because the reality of a multilingual African country cannot be the same as that of a predominantly monolingual developed country (Dalvit et al., 2009:39). In countries where there are policies based on bilingualism, the main aim is social and cultural assimilation into the language of the majority (Baker, 2006:207).

Walters (2011:1-25) argues that South African teachers at former Model C schools are not professionally trained to support learners whose first language is not English. Neli and Theron (2008:1) assert that some Foundation Phase teachers have expressed feelings of inadequacy regarding the skills to support English Second Language (ESL) learners with limited English proficiency. The feelings of inadequacy among teachers can be attributed to the fact that some of the teachers are not English First Language speakers and that they themselves are not proficient in the use of the English language. The language dependency model is not applicable in the South African schools because African languages and Western languages do not have similar language structures. Proficiency in an African language does not guarantee competence in English because the language structures between these languages are different (Lenyai, 2011:71).

Kaiser et al. (2010:53) assert that in order to address the language challenges in the schools, the Department of Education should also develop policies that differentiate between teaching a language as a language of teaching and learning and teaching language as subject matter. They argue that in the present National Curriculum Statement (NCS) and the CAPS documents, it is not clear how a language for learning

73

and teaching, as opposed to learning a language for general purposes, may differ in the teaching methodology and content (Kaiser et al., 2010:53).

The South African language policies concentrate on language teaching for cognitive development and communication, independent of the child’s psychological development. My contention is that language teaching in the Foundation Phase should integrate content that address the emotional and behavioural needs of all learners.

The Education White Paper 6 (Department of Education, 2001) was designed to address the past political and psychological injustices that were embedded in the Apartheid Education policies. The Paper addresses learning barriers including, among others, language. Although it is stated in the White Paper 6 that the Department of Education will address the issue of “inappropriate languages or language of learning and teaching” (Department of Education, 2001:18) and that barriers to learning arise from among other factors, “the language or medium of instruction” (Department of Education, 2001:19), it is not clear which languages are inappropriate and how the challenge will be addressed.

Poor language proficiency in a second language has not been spelt out as a barrier to learning and development. The link between poor proficiency in the second language, negative emotions and behaviour problems is also not shown in the paper. The phenomenon of a foreign language as a psychological barrier to the child’s psychosocial functioning in the learning environment, has not been mentioned at all. This means that the inclusion of immigrant learners in the South African education system remains undocumented in policies and continues to be a serious challenge to both the teachers and learners.

Mendelowitz and Davis (2011:41) argue that in South Africa, the curriculum that includes learning diverse cultures and practices of the languages of all learners will help to alleviate xenophobia and discrimination among learners. This type of language instruction is referred to as ‘narrative multilingualism’. Mendelowitz and Davis (2011:41) define narrative multilingualism as “a pedagogy in which reading and writing narratives about language histories and practices are central to the learning process”. This concept was created by Phillion (2002:536) who asserts that narrative multilingualism focuses on understanding derived from experience (context) rather than in theory.

74

Narrative multilingualism involves passionate, intensive, hands-on practice rather than a distanced theoretical perspective. The successful implementation of this type of instruction depends on the development of close relationships among the participants who are often from different cultural, ethnic and language backgrounds.

The kind of knowledge that emerges during these interactions is likely to be valued by all the participants because it has been co-created through sharing their language aspects (Phillion, 2002:536). Teachers could incorporate the language content that has been co-created by the learners themselves in the learning processes in order to facilitate the learning of the second language and promote respect for other people’s languages and cultures among learners. Co-created curriculum content would give the learners a sense of co-ownership of the content which could enhance positive behaviour through sharing their narratives. Narrative multilingualism programmes are founded upon the Theory of Narrative Construction of Reality as advocated by Bruner (1991).

Mendelowitz and Davis (2011:41) maintain that the pedagogy of narrative programmes creates an opportunity for learners and teachers to share language history and language practices through narrative writing and storytelling, as well as critical reflection about the self and others. “In a society where xenophobia and linguicism is prevalent, such interventions can play a valuable role in changing attitudes and teaching learners to value differences” (Mendelowitz and Davis, 2011:41). My contention is that narrative programmes can close the gap that exists between language programmes and behaviour programmes in schools.