Possible educational models that would align with the language-in-education policy (1997)

Heugh and October (2005:17) identify five education models that may serve the aims of the LiEP:

a) The use of the mother tongue as medium of instruction from Reception through to grade 12, complemented by high-quality teaching of an additional language.

48 b) The use of the mother tongue as medium of instruction, gradually shifting from 90% of the school day in Reception / grade 1 to 50% of the school day by grade 5-6. This is complemented by the use of an additional language for 10% of the school day in Reception / grade 1, increasing to 50% of the school day by grade 5-6. This use of 2 languages for teaching and learning continues to grade 12.

c) The use of the mother tongue as medium of instruction, gradually shifting from 90% of the school day in Reception / grade 1 to 50% of the school day by grade 9. This is complemented by the use of an additional language for 10% of the school day in Reception / grade 1, increasing to 50% of the school day by grade 9.

d) The use of the two most widely used minority languages as in options (b) and (c) in the case of schools / classrooms with several minority languages, complemented by special language maintenance programmes.

e) The addition of a language stream in the case of a school having enough speakers of a minority language to justify such an action.

Regardless of the model chosen, Heugh and October (2005:17-18) argue, provincial departments and schools need to ensure that the language proficiencies of the teachers and pupils are matched, that teachers improve their language skills and / or bilingual teaching abilities and that educational material and exam papers are made available to pupils not only in English, but also in their mother tongue. Additionally, in my opinion, learners should also be allowed to answer exam papers and complete assignments in their mother tongue if they so chose.

49 3.8.2 Arguments against the use of African languages as media of instruction Drawing on work by Chumbow and McLaughlin, Nomlomo (2004:132) summarises the arguments most often cited against the use of African languages as media of instruction. Firstly, African languages are seen as lacking the international currency that languages such as English and French have to enable international relations. Secondly, in the multilingual context of an African country, English is often seen as the best instrument to promote national unity due to its supposed neutrality. The lack of academic vocabulary in African languages is a third argument commonly put forth (cf. also Probyn 2005:165). The acquisition and expression of Western technological and scientific knowledge and thought is furthermore deemed better suited to English than to African languages. The final argument centers on costs: producing educational materials in African languages and training teachers to use these media of instruction would be too costly (Nomlomo 2004:132-133).

In reaction to the abovementioned arguments, Nomlomo (2004:133) provides a number of counterarguments. Firstly, economic growth is not necessarily reliant on linguistic homogeneity, as linguistically heterogenic countries such as Singapore and Switzerland have proven. The economy might in fact be served by multilingualism in terrains such as tourism, translation and interpreting. Secondly, placing the onus on English to unite a racially and ethnically divided nation is a case of misplaced hope. The promotion of individual multilingualism may be much more effective as it will enable cross-cultural communication and so promote a greater understanding and tolerance of differences. (Nomlomo 2004:133).

Thirdly, the problem of insufficient vocabulary is not without a solution. African languages are just as capable of evolving to meet their speakers‘ needs as any other language. This can be done by either inventing new words or by borrowing words from other languages (Nomlomo 2004:133). Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh (2004:177) strengthen Nomlomo‘s argument by pointing out that this has already been done once in

50 South Africa. A significant amount of subject terminology was developed for many African languages for the first eight years of primary schooling under the first stage of Bantu Education, i.e. from 1955 to 1975 (Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh 2004:177). Throughout this period, textbooks and readers in seven of South Africa‘s and many of Namibia‘s African languages were in use (Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh 2004:177). According to Heugh (2007:209), the Department of Education simply disposed of all the African language textbook archives after 1994.

Textbooks for the Foundation Phase (grades 1 to 3) have, however, again been made available in African languages (Probyn 2005:166). The fact that such support is yet to be supplied to higher grades, is cited as one of the main reasons for English-medium instruction being introduced in grade 4 already instead of the previously advised grade 5 (Probyn 2005:166). The result of the current lack of African language textbooks for higher grades is that the few parents who are able to do so, have been driven to transfer their children to the 6% of schools that are the best resourced English-medium state schools, or the 2% of private schools in the country (Heugh 2007:209).

Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh (2004:178), however, point out that lists of terminology and publications in African languages dating from before, during and after Bantu Education have been preserved in libraries and are in use in African language departments at universities and even in South Africa‘s neighbouring countries.12 Arguments citing a lack of terminology in African languages lastly also ignore the successful corpus planning that awarded Afrikaans its current status as LoLT at tertiary level, proving yet again that any language may be developed to serve a desired function (Probyn 2005:165).

12

For an assessment of what the extent of this type of foundation is and how much work will need to be done from scratch if educational materials are again to be made available in African languages, see (Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh 2004). This source also provides an overview of how terminology development in African languages was done, as well as a critique of the procedures followed.

51 As a reaction to the final argument that Nomlomo (2004:133) cites against the use of African languages as media of instruction, namely that of costs, one might consider a point made by Mahlalela-Thusi and Heugh (2004:178), i.e. that the necessary funds for making educational materials available in African languages were evidently available during the apartheid years when funding was highly biased against Bantu Education. No valid argument can therefore be made for a lack of funds in the current schooling system that supposedly upholds equal educational opportunities and funding for all (Mahlalela- Thusi and Heugh 2004:178).