South African Journal of African Languages State barricades: Educators' inside story on mother-tongue education in a postcolonial Zimbabwean context Gamuchirai Tsitsi Ndamba & Micheal M van Wyk

Abstract

There is overwhelming evidence the world over on the pedagogical benefits of learning in one’s mother language.
The Zimbabwean language-in-education policy enshrined in the 1987 Education Act (amended in 2006) allows
mother-tongue use up to Grade 7. Contrary to the stated policy, primary school teachers continue to use English as
the medium of instruction. The study, therefore, explored the experiences of fifteen rural primary school teachers,
three school heads and two district school inspectors on factors that stifle effective implementation of the policy
in Masvingo District of Zimbabwe. The postcolonial theory paradigm guided the study. The qualitative case study
was employed where semi-structured questionnaires, focus group discussions and individual interviews were
used to collect data from the purposefully selected participants. Findings indicated that one of the major barriers
was state-related, as all the study participants were ignorant about the stipulations of the 2006 policy and how to
implement it due to perceived inadequate policy dialogue between the policy-makers and policy implementers.
Participants believed that the challenges they faced could be resolved and they proposed some intervention
strategies. Recommendations were made on how to engage educators in the implementation of the policy for the
benefit of rural primary school learners.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjal20
South African Journal of African Languages
ISSN: 0257-2117 (Print) 2305-1159 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjal20
State barricades: Educators’ inside story on
mother-tongue education in a postcolonial
Zimbabwean context
Gamuchirai Tsitsi Ndamba & Micheal M van Wyk
To cite this article: Gamuchirai Tsitsi Ndamba & Micheal M van Wyk (2018) State barricades:
Educators’ inside story on mother-tongue education in a postcolonial Zimbabwean context, South
African Journal of African Languages, 38:1, 51-59
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2018.1429870
Published online: 23 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

The South African Journal of African Languages is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Informa UK Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group)
South African Journal of African Languages 2018, 38(1): 51–59 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd
South African Journal
of African Languages
ISSN 0257-2117 EISSN 2305-1159
https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2018.1429870
Introduction
This paper presents findings on a study conducted to
explore state-related barriers in the implementation of the
Zimbabwean Language-in-Education Policy (hereafter to be
referred to as the LiEP). Soon after independence in 1980,
Zimbabwe realised the significant value of using mother
tongue in learning, and a LiEP which raised the status of
the local languages was formulated in the Education Act of
1987 under Section 55 of Part X1. The policy stipulated that
children from Grade 1 up to Grade 3 should be taught in
the mother tongue in all subjects and that English becomes
one of the subjects. The policy was amended in 2006, with
teaching in the mother tongue extended to Grade 7, as
illustrated by the amended policy quoted below:
The Education Act (Chapter 25: 04) as amended, 2006
Part XII Section 62
Languages to be taught in schools
1. Subject to this section, all the three languages of
Zimbabwe, namely Shona, Ndebele and English,
shall be taught on an equal-time basis in all schools
up to form 2 level (former group A schools included).
2. In areas where indigenous languages other than
those mentioned in sub-section (1) are spoken,
the Minister may authorise the teaching of such
languages in schools in addition to those specified
in sub-section (1).
3. The Minister may authorise the teaching of foreign
languages in schools.
4. Prior to form one, any one of the languages
referred to in subsection (1) and (2) may be used
as the medium of instruction, depending upon
which language is more commonly spoken and
better understood by the pupils.
5. Sign language shall be the priority medium of
instruction for the deaf and hard of hearing.
This study was conducted from a postcolonial perspective
in which lack of political will in an African context may be
attributed to colonial influence where current government
structures do not make efforts to promote mother-tongue
education policies (Mutasa, 2006; Ball & Mcivor, 2013;
Mtenje, 2013; Ssentanda, 2014; Trudell, 2016). There is
a growing body of literature on language of instruction
issues in Zimbabwe, where the results indicate that
learners perform better in Mathematics (Chivhanga, 2012)
and Science (Nyaungwa, 2013) when Shona, which is the
language spoken by the majority of Zimbabwean indigenous
people, is used as the language of instruction at primary
school level. These studies were conducted at individual
level without involving the Ministry of Primary and Secondary
Education. However, there appears to be a dearth of
literature on the experiences of Zimbabwean rural primary
school teachers pertaining to state-related factors which
may be considered responsible for obstructing effective
implementation of the current policy on the language of
education. This paper stems from a larger doctoral study
which explored the barriers to the implementation of the
2006 LiEP for Zimbabwe.
State barricades: Educators’ inside story on mother-tongue education in a
postcolonial Zimbabwean context
Gamuchirai Tsitsi Ndamba1* and Micheal M van Wyk2
1Department of Teacher Development, Robert Mugabe School of Education and Culture, Great Zimbabwe University, Masvingo,
Zimbabwe
2Department of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, School of Teacher Education, College of Education, University of South
Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
*Corresponding author email: ndambagt@gmail.com
There is overwhelming evidence the world over on the pedagogical benefits of learning in one’s mother language.
The Zimbabwean language-in-education policy enshrined in the 1987 Education Act (amended in 2006) allows
mother-tongue use up to Grade 7. Contrary to the stated policy, primary school teachers continue to use English as
the medium of instruction. The study, therefore, explored the experiences of fifteen rural primary school teachers,
three school heads and two district school inspectors on factors that stifle effective implementation of the policy
in Masvingo District of Zimbabwe. The postcolonial theory paradigm guided the study. The qualitative case study
was employed where semi-structured questionnaires, focus group discussions and individual interviews were
used to collect data from the purposefully selected participants. Findings indicated that one of the major barriers
was state-related, as all the study participants were ignorant about the stipulations of the 2006 policy and how to
implement it due to perceived inadequate policy dialogue between the policy-makers and policy implementers.
Participants believed that the challenges they faced could be resolved and they proposed some intervention
strategies. Recommendations were made on how to engage educators in the implementation of the policy for the
benefit of rural primary school learners.

Ndamba and van Wyk52
Literature review
Research indicates that learning in an unfamiliar language
restricts access to quality education and results in poor
scholastic attainment (Alexander, 2004; Alidou, Boly,
Brock-Utne, Diallo, Heugh & Wolff, 2006; Brock-Utne &
Skattum, 2009; Desai, 2012; Ball & Mcivor, 2013; Ferguson,
2013; Brock-Utne & Mercer, 2014). For Vygotsky (1978),
language is a key factor in the process of cognitive
development (Baker, 2006; Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana,
2010; Kioko, Ndung’u, Njoroge & Mutiga, 2014; Trudell,
2016). Justifying the importance of language in the
education context, Crawford (1992, cited in Cummins, 2005:
166) asserts that
[t]here is no equality of treatment merely by providing
students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers
and curriculum; for students who do not understand
English are effectively foreclosed from any
meaningful education.
The current LiEP for Zimbabwe seeks to address the
challenge of learners who are not proficient in English as a
second language when they enter school. The justification
for adopting this late-exit transitional bilingual education
programme may be that children need to function in the
majority language in society, hence primary school students
are to learn in their first language and then proceed to
secondary education, where they use English as a second
language in order to fulfil labour-market requirements
(Nziramasanga, 1999; Kamwangamalu, 2004; 2009; Linton
& Jimenez, 2009; Ghazali, 2010; Prinsloo, 2011; Nkwe &
Marungudzi, 2015).
The intrinsic value of local languages and cultures is now
being appreciated globally for the purposes of education
in particular and national development in general (Benson,
2005; Le Mottee, 2008; Mavesera, 2009; Makoni, 2012;
Benson & Kosonen, 2013; Matsinhe, 2013; Bangura, 2014;
Ndimande-Hlongwa & Ndebele, 2017). In Africa, where
children continue to learn through a foreign language, the
question of language-in-education is currently of particular
concern, as this situation restricts access to the curriculum,
especially where the majority of teachers and students
have not mastered the language well (Alidou et al., 2006;
Mutasa, 2006; Brock-Utne & Skattum, 2009; Mcllwraith,
2013; Brock-Utne & Mercer, 2014), as is the case with rural
primary school learners in Zimbabwe.
Literature has revealed that African governments
make one declaration after another and come up with
plans which merely remain on paper, rather than showing
willingness and genuine commitment to address problems
that contribute towards the low status of African indigenous
languages (Bamgbose, 1991; 2009; Mazuruse, 2016). In the
postcolonial era, African governments continue to perpetuate
the ex-colonial languages as the media of instruction
(Ngefac, 2010; Kioko et al., 2014; Trudell, 2016).
Zimbabwe is no exception in making pronouncements
which indicate a desire to raise the status of mother
tongues. According to the Secretary’s Policy Circular 1
of 2002, the minority languages, namely TshiKalanga,
TshiVenda, ChiTonga, ChiTshangana and ChiNambya were
to be progressively taught up to Grade 7 by 2005. Further
communication to policy implementers was made through
the Director’s Circular No. 26 of 2007 which highlights the
Ministry’s concern on ‘the realisation that the majority of
educationists in this country are apparently giving a cursory
attention to the provision of these documents’. Besides
expressing concern over failure to implement the language
policy provisions, the same Director’s Circular No. 26 of
2007, under the section on ‘Implementing the Teaching of
Local Languages’, spells out the Ministry’s position on the
significant role played by the mother tongue:
The underlying principle for using Local Languages
as media of instruction lies in their proven ability
to ensure effective communication between the
learner and the teacher. Effective and efficient
communication is important for full comprehension of
fundamental concepts by the learner.
‘The New Zimbabwe Curriculum Framework’, further
emphasises the use of the mother tongue as medium
of instruction at Infant School level (Early Childhood
Development up to Grade 2). One of its seven learning
areas recommends that an indigenous language should be
used as the medium of instruction (Ministry for Primary and
Secondary Education: Curriculum Framework for Primary
and Secondary Education, 2015–2022: 30–31). Phase 2
implementation of the New Curriculum was meant to begin
in January 2017.
Despite the efforts to recognise the crucial value of the
home language in the learning of primary school pupils,
teachers appear to disregard the suggestions (Gudyanga,
Wadesango & Dzirikure, 2015; Magwa, 2015; Ndamba,
Sithole & van Wyk, 2017). Teachers are viewed as key role
players in the successful implementation of any language
policy (Ndawi & Maravanyika, 2011; Nkwe & Marungudzi,
2015; Ndamba, 2017). Failure to implement the LiEP
therefore challenges the mandate of teachers to provide
access to and equality of education to all learners in the
primary school through using a familiar language in teaching
and learning, particularly in rural areas. Specifically, this
study focused on what educators regarded as state-related
barriers to the implementation of the 2006 LiEP in a
predominantly Shona area.
Implementation scholars assert that government
intervention is crucial for successful implementation of a
curriculum innovation (Fullan, 1991). Therefore, if there is
absence of a strong political will or lack of commitment on
the part of policy-makers, it becomes a state-related barrier
to the implementation of a mother-tongue policy in African
countries (Bamgbose, 1991; Banda, 2000; Blommaert,
2006; Nkomo, 2008; Valdiviezo, 2009; Ghazali, 2010;
Desai, 2012; Mtenje, 2013; Ssentanda, 2014). Accordingly,
Bamgbose (1991) cites the problem of ‘declaration without
implementation’ as one of the major state-related factors
which contributes towards failure to implement mother-
tongue policies in Africa. Mtenje (2008: 24) states that
declaration without implementation is the inability to
implement an officially declared policy by a government.
The 2013 Constitution recognises 16 official languages for
Zimbabwe, the majority of them being indigenous minority
languages. All 16 of the officially recognised languages are
expected to be treated equitably (Constitution of Zimbabwe,
2013: 17). According to the provisions of the LiEP of the
1987 Education Act (amended in May 2006), teachers have

South African Journal of African Languages 2018, 38(1): 51–59 53
the latitude to use any of the official languages prescribed
by the Zimbabwean Constitution as medium of instruction
in primary education. Mazuruse (2016) asserts that the
language proposals in the 2013 Constitution may have been
far too ambitious as it appears to be an insurmountable task
for government to achieve equality among 16 languages.
Study findings illustrate that the challenges in officialising 15
indigenous languages as enshrined in the 2013 Zimbabwean
Constitution had to do with negative attitudes, ignorance on
what the multilingual provisions require and the different
levels of development among the different languages
(Mazuruse, 2016).
In practice, African indigenous languages are not being
used as media of instruction in any one school in Zimbabwe,
with particular reference to Shona and Ndebele (Magwa,
2008; 2015; Nkomo, 2008; Mavesera, 2009; Chimhundu,
2010; Gora, 2013; Gotosa, Rwodzi & Mhlanga, 2013;
Ndamba, 2017). In the context of this study, this situation
of the declared mother-tongue policy in education not being
implemented matches Bamgbose’s (1991) observation of
declaration without implementation and which can take
one of three forms. The first form is where policy-makers
are aware of the limiting circumstances. For example, in
the Zimbabwean context, Grade 7 examinations are set
and written in English, yet the policy states that the mother
tongue may be used as the language of instruction up to the
end of primary school.
The second situation cited by Bamgbose is where a
policy may be declared, and ‘escape clauses’ are built into
the policy so that policy-makers are not held responsible
for non-implementation (Ssentanda, 2014). In our view,
the Zimbabwean LiEP gives room for non-implementation
because of the presence of a clear ‘escape clause’ in the
2006 amendment, which reads ‘Prior to Form One, any
one of the languages referred to in subsection (1) and
(2) may be used as the medium of instruction, depending
upon which language is more commonly spoken and better
understood by the pupils’. As such, the use of ‘may’ permits
non-implementation to go unquestioned since the use of
these languages is not enforced to the same degree as the
authoritative language used in the case of English (Magwa,
2008; 2015; Nkomo, 2008). The third form is that a policy
may be declared, but there are no specified mechanisms for
implementation, resulting in a policy that merely remains on
paper. This situation may be true for Zimbabwe, where there
is currently no functional language commission to monitor
and evaluate implementation success or failure with respect
to the LiEP. The policy is also silent on what measures would
be taken against those who do not use indigenous languages
as media of instruction, thus permitting non-compliance with
mother-tongue education to go unchecked (Kamwangamalu,
2009; Valdiviezo, 2009).
Statement of the problem
Despite the presence of the LiEP stipulations, there
continues to be a visible gap between policy provision and
policy implementation. Primary school teachers continue
to use the second language as the medium of instruction,
thereby disadvantaging rural school learners where English
is rarely used for everyday communication. A review of
literature on the implementation of the LiEP indicates that the
major thrust is on challenges that African learners face when
learning through a foreign language (Brock-Utne & Skattum,
2009; Desai, 2012). Research conducted in Zimbabwe
has mainly focused on attitudes towards the use of African
languages as media of instruction due to English hegemony
(Magwa, 2008; 2015; Nyaungwa, 2013; Nkwe & Marungudzi,
2015; Mazuruse, 2016; Ndamba, Sithole & van Wyk,
2017; Ndimande-Hlongwa & Ndebele, 2017). Few studies,
if any, have been conducted in Zimbabwe to examine
specifically what rural primary school teachers consider to be
state-related barriers to the implementation of the 2006 LiEP.
As the policy was legislated using the top-down approach
(Fullan, 1994; Mtenje, 2013), the researchers felt that there
was a need to assess the level of government intervention
and the support that teachers receive for successful
implementation of the proposed policy.
The study was guided by the following main research
question: What state-related factors act as barriers to, and
what intervention strategies may be employed for, effective
implementation of the LiEP in rural primary schools?
Methodology
A qualitative case study design, informed by the
postcolonial theory paradigm, was adopted in this research.
The case study research design addresses a contemporary
phenomenon within its natural context, that is, the rural
primary school setting. Through the postcolonial lens
(Chilisa, 2012), the intervention strategies suitable for the
Zimbabwean context were proposed by the participants,
with regard to state-related factors that hinder effective
implementation of the bilingual education policy in
postcolonial Zimbabwe.
The participants included 15 rural primary school teachers,
five from each of the three sampled schools, three school
heads (principals) and two school inspectors from Masvingo
Education District. All the data sources were focused on rural
primary school teachers, school heads and school inspectors
because they are key players in the field of education and,
therefore, can influence change of policy.
Data was collected through the use of semi-structured
questionnaires which yielded open answers from teachers,
three focus group discussions with teachers, and individual
face-to-face interviews with school heads and school
inspectors. The choice of these instruments was influenced
by the postcolonial epistemological perspective which
encourages participants to speak out about what affects their
lives, and allows them to come up with possible solutions to
their problems (Rivas, 2005; Ratele, 2006; Rizvi, Lingard &
Lavia, 2006).
Accordingly, the constant comparative method of qualitative
data analysis was followed in this research (Cohen, Manion &
Morrison, 2011). The constant comparative approach is the
analytic technique of qualitatively comparing and contrasting
data from various data sources in a bid to develop categories
and to look for patterns among the categories (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2010). In other words, the constant comparative
method was compatible with triangulation which was achieved
through collecting data from different groups and also through
the use of multiple methods. In line with the methodologies

Ndamba and van Wyk54
inclined to the postcolonial paradigm, a ‘member check’ audit
was conducted with the participants as a way of heightening
the dependability and confirmability of the study (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985, cited in Cohen et al., 2011).
For ethical reasons, the participants were informed
verbally and then asked to read and sign an Informed
Consent form which clearly stated the purpose of the study,
that their participation was voluntary, that they were free
to discontinue participation at will, and that their answers
would be held in strict confidence (Silverman, 2010). In
order to guarantee privacy, anonymity and confidentiality of
participants, numbers and pseudonyms were used rather
than real names for schools, teachers, school heads and
school inspectors. To safeguard the rights of participants
in this study, authority was received from the Ministry of
Primary and Secondary Education (hereafter MoPSE) to visit
and meet the participants to conduct the research.
Results
All the participants in this study revealed that the major
barrier was lack of dialogue between the government and
the policy implementers. The MoPSE did not formally put in
place mechanisms to disseminate information on the 2006
LiEP, and there was lack of support by way of educational
materials in the mother tongue. Five categories which
came out prominently as state-related barriers to policy
implementation were educators’ ignorance on the existence
of the 2006 LiEP, failure to involve teachers, unavailability
of circulars and guidelines, absence of educational
materials in the mother tongue, and the intervention
strategies suggested by participants.
Failure to involve teachers in the adoption of the LiEP
All the participants in this study asserted that teachers were
not in any way involved in the adoption of the 2006 policy
on the language of education for primary schools. The
concerns were demonstrated by the following expressions,
which represent the assessment of many of the participants:
There are no follow-ups. I have never heard even
from our neighbouring schools. We talk sometimes
as teachers but hey, we have never heard of such
follow-ups to the policy (Teacher – School 1).
I think nothing has been done because we are not
aware of it (policy). If something had been done, we
could be perhaps trying to implement it. So it means
nothing has been done, particularly to our rural
schools (Teacher – School 2).
So far we haven’t received any information about the
policy, so we cannot say they are supportive because
we don’t have any information (Head – School 1).
To tell the truth, the office does nothing on this.
As I said earlier, we do not have even workshops
on language in education policy held at the District
office…but we always have staff development in the
teaching of comprehension in English. We always
have staff development workshops on the teaching
of different concepts in Mathematics but not on the
language policy, we have never (School inspector 1).
It is therefore apparent that teachers, school heads
and school inspectors were not aware of any professional
development activities to make rural primary school teachers
knowledgeable about the requirements of the 2006 policy on
the language of education and how to implement it.
Unavailability of circulars and policy guidelines
Participants indicated that teachers did not get any circulars
or policy guidelines which spelt out the contents of the 2006
LiEP and how to implement it. This position was revealed
in the following statements which are typical of all the
participants’ views:
We are not aware of circulars, maybe teachers are
being told verbally (Teacher – School 1).
If circulars were issued out, we missed them. The
Ministry, however, could have held workshops to
staff develop teachers like me and others in rural
areas (Teacher – School 3).
I don’t think there are any guidelines which were put
in place because if there were any, then we would be
knowledgeable about this policy that you are talking
about. So I don’t believe that there are any guidelines
that were put in place (School inspector 2).
As disclosed in the excerpts above, the proclamations
illustrate that the government did not prepare teachers for
the implementation of a policy which they are supposed to
base their teaching on.
Lack of awareness on the existence of the 2006 LiEP
All participants in this study revealed serious knowledge
deficiencies in terms of their understanding of the provisions
of the 2006 LiEP. The following arguments substantiate that
participants were ignorant of the existence of the LiEP:
I have no idea of the existence of the policy. If
it exists, it wasn’t published through the correct
channel of implementation (Teacher – School 2).
Unfortunately the policy has not reached this place,
so we are not using it. What we are using is the
syllabus which is in English when teaching other
subjects except Shona, that’s when we use the
mother tongue (Teacher – School 3).
Only one teacher thought she was aware of the 2006 LiEP
when she stated that
It’s like u-m-m the policy requires us to teach using
mother tongue for infant grades but for upper grades
I think it should be English when teaching other
subjects (Teacher – School 2).
The policy alluded to here was actually the old policy of
the 1987 Education Act amended in 1994, which allowed
teachers to use the mother language in teaching up to
Grade 3 only, as opposed to the 2006 LiEP which calls on
teachers to use the mother tongue in education up to the
end of primary school.
Likewise, school heads and school inspectors professed
their ignorance of the 2006 LiEP, as illustrated in the
following excerpts:
Honestly speaking I am not at all well versed with
this policy…Obviously my teachers may not know
anything about it, they are not aware of this policy
(Head – School 2).

South African Journal of African Languages 2018, 38(1): 51–59 55
U-m-m I have nothing to offer on that one. In fact I am
not aware of the policy…I don’t have any knowledge
about that, maybe I need to be told about it, I need
circulars about it (Head – School 3).
As I have said earlier, it’s not that they are not willing
to implement the current language in education
policy, they do not know about it. Headmasters do not
know about it. If the inspector does not know about it,
it’s worse for the teacher (School inspector 1).
Unfortunately I am not privy to u-m-m the contents
of that policy you are talking about and so my
contribution on that I think will not be meaningful…
Maybe it’s gathering dust in their offices. If they
wanted this to be effective, I think they should have
held some workshops to sensitise heads and even
educating inspectors (School inspector 2).
These affirmations clearly exhibit absolute lack of
knowledge by the teachers, school heads and school
inspectors in this study pertaining to the provisions of the
2006 LiEP.
Non-availability of educational material resources
Many questionnaire respondents, focus group discussants
and interview participants pointed out that the government,
through the MoPSE, did not supply schools with the
relevant material resources to support the implementation
of the mother-tongue policy. Even continued support in the
form of any educational materials from the education sector,
which is necessary to sustain the implementation of the
current LiEP, was also said to be unavailable. Informants’
remarks which are typical of those articulated by many
participants are presented below:
There are no resources and we were never told there
are some changes. It’s only UNICEF which donated
those textbooks which are in English, not Shona
textbooks, for all subjects (Teacher – School 1).
Ya-a-h, financial constraints, the government will have
to change everything. I don’t know whether they will
manage to do that to change all textbooks to Shona,
u-m-m that’s a challenge (Teacher – School 2).
We don’t have adequate resources to use for the
mother tongue. We do not have at all. If we had the
resources maybe that could help us and change the
attitudes of people (Head – School 3).
I think the government of Zimbabwe in general
lacks resources to effectively make this policy get
implemented. It’s an issue of resources I think, just
that (School inspector 2).
The above excerpts clearly spell out that the MoPSE did not
provide schools with any form of material resources as a
way of supporting the implementation of the 2006 LiEP.
Proposed implementation strategies
The study informants proposed the following intervention
strategies, which are typical of many which were cited, as
being linked to state-related barriers:
I think they should also seek donor funding so that
resource materials can be produced in abundance
and to be able to be distributed to schools. They
will also have money to arrange for seminars and
workshops so that the policy implementers will
be aware, will be equipped with the information
pertaining to the policy if everything is translated
(Teacher – School 3).
I think the top should come down to the grass roots
and make sure what they put on paper is implemented.
They should not just plan or propose, put something
on paper and fail to make a follow-up on the
implementation of the policy (Head – School 2).
There is need for them to disseminate information
about the whole thing because right now we
don’t have any information about it. So let them
disseminate the information. They should also give
us circulars u-m-m modules about the language
policy and so forth so that we can easily implement.
And there is also need to staff develop the staff,
mount workshops and meetings with teachers and
heads (Head – School 3).
Well I think there is need for a level of seriousness
on the part of the Ministry to make sure that they
have put resources, resources that will enable u-m-m
educate players like inspectors and headmasters
to be informed, to be knowledgeable, to be staff
developed on this policy so that its implementation
can be effective (School inspector 2).
Apart from retraining teachers, research and conducting
pilot studies on how to implement the current LiEP was
deemed a necessary intervention strategy by participants
in this study. This kind of thinking was represented in the
following response where one of the teachers wrote:
They should call for workshops to teach how the
policy can work, given time to use it. They also can
make experiments on certain schools so that others
can see the results.
It is evident that participants in this study recommended
intervention strategies that would make educators aware of
the provisions of the 2006 LiEP, as well as its significance
for the learning of primary school pupils.
Discussion of findings
The findings clearly indicate that the Zimbabwe government
has not formally put in place any mechanisms for advocacy,
as a way of popularising the policy, to effect the curriculum
change. The study findings, therefore, obviously point
towards state-related barriers as there is no teacher
involvement, no circulars or policy guidelines and no
educational materials in the mother tongue, resulting in
policy implementers being ignorant of the existence of
the 2006 LiEP. On analysing the actions that happened at
provincial, district and school levels after the introduction of
the LiEP in 2006, the findings confirm that there were no
steps taken to make teachers aware of the current policy.
Hence, rural learners continue to access the curriculum in
English (Magwa, 2008; 2015; Nkomo, 2008; Chimhundu,
2010; Maseko & Dhlamini, 2014; Gudyanga, Wadesango
& Dzirikure, 2015; Ndamba, 2017). These findings are
contrary to what Kosonen (2013) observed in Cambodia and
Thailand, which serve as good examples of countries which

Ndamba and van Wyk56
are currently strengthening their language-in-education
policies through research and advocacy on the importance
of using the first languages. With reference to the Canadian
experience, Ball and Mcivor (2013) report on the need for
political will, which must be accompanied by action taken by
education authorities to ensure successful implementation of
the mother-tongue medium-of-instruction policy.
There are several possible explanations as to why the
Zimbabwean policy-makers did not put in place strategies
to bring about clear policy dialogue between themselves
and policy implementers, in this case rural primary school
teachers, school heads and school inspectors. One of the
possible reasons for implementation failure, associated
with inadequate policy dialogue as a state-related
barrier, may have been the top-down nature of policy
implementation (Mtenje, 2013), as pointed out by some of
the participants in this study. The government, through the
MoPSE, may have assumed that once the LiEP had been
authoritatively proclaimed, then primary school teachers
would automatically implement the policy which allows them
to teach in the mother language (Rogan & Grayson, 2003;
Brynard, 2005). For teachers to become fully committed to
the implementation of the LiEP, bottom-up practices are
recommended since they assist in forming a good foundation
by allowing stakeholders to make an input in raising the
status of the mother language (Benson, 2005; Nkwe &
Marungudzi, 2015). Therefore, for successful implementation
of the current LiEP to happen, it was probably necessary for
the policy-makers to consider both the top-down and the
bottom-up initiatives (Fullan, 1994; James & Jones, 2008).
Another possible explanation may be that the government
did not have the capacity to access resources such as
human, financial, material, technological and logistical, as
indicated in the study findings. Such resources are regarded
as vital for the purpose of disseminating information in
order to make the policy viable. In this study, reprinting
of textbooks in indigenous languages was perceived by
participants as a mammoth task and a costly exercise which
the government had no capacity to achieve. This finding
is not new since research indicates that in other African
countries governments do not contemplate getting involved
in translating materials because they think that it will be an
endeavour too expensive to achieve (Ndawi & Maravanyika,
2011; Mazuruse, 2016). Citing Nyati-Ramahobo (2004),
Nkomo (2008) concludes that implementation problems of
the LiEP in Zimbabwe may arise because the law prescribes
one language, but at the same time provides room for
other languages without showing any commitment to the
development of indigenous languages. With reference to
South Africa, Desai (2012: 58) suggests that
the state will have to develop resources in these
(African) languages, resources such as teachers
trained to teach the African mother tongue,
textbooks, reading material and terminology lists.
Therefore, it was suggested in this study that before any
attempt is made to enforce the use of the current LiEP, there
is a need to allocate resources and educate teachers on how
to use the requisite terminology that has been developed
(Foley, 2008; Nkomo, 2008; Ball & Mcivor, 2013; Mtenje,
2013). Research findings on the position of educational
materials suggest that Zimbabwean teachers are distressed
due to lack of requisite terminology for use in Science
subjects (Greenhalgh & Shumba, 2014).
Related findings by Mushi (1996, cited in Banda, 2000)
point out that there was strong political will and commitment
exhibited in Tanzania when Kiswahili was adopted as the
language of education. The situation described by Mushi was
the opposite of findings in this study, where it was revealed
that the Zimbabwe government simply pays lip-service to the
use of the mother language in education without providing
the necessary motivation and support to seriously promote
mother tongue use in education in tandem with research
findings in the modern world (Baker, 2006; Mutasa, 2006;
Brock-Utne & Skattum, 2009; Chimhundu, 2010; Benson &
Kosonen, 2013; Matsinhe, 2013; Trudell, 2016; Ndimande-
Hlongwa & Ndebele, 2017). Thus, a situation was created
where the LiEP of 2006 merely remained on paper, gathering
dust in the highest offices of government without being
monitored or evaluated by the powers that be.
It may be inferred that such lack of political will by the
Zimbabwe government, like in the case of some postcolonial
states in Africa, may be attributed to negative attitudes
towards the use of the mother language in education (Alidou
et al., 2006; Chimhundu, 2010; Mustapha, 2011; Chivhanga,
2012; Ferguson, 2013; Nyaungwa, 2013; Maseko &
Dhlamini, 2014; Gudyanga, Wadesango & Dzirikure, 2015;
Ndamba, Sithole & van Wyk, 2017). The colonial influence
is evident in this study’s findings which point out that when it
comes to challenges facing teachers in using English as the
language of education, such concerns quickly receive the
attention of education authorities, who immediately mount
a number of workshops, thereby directing resources to the
teaching of English as opposed to the implementation of the
current LiEP.
Failure by government to garner support from school
heads and school inspectors may also be associated with
inadequate policy dialogue as a state-related barrier to
the use of indigenous African languages in education.
School inspectors can be regarded as a major category of
stakeholders as they, as government representatives, are
capable of influencing change at district level, while school
heads are crucial gatekeepers when it comes to effective
policy implementation at individual school level. If they are
not knowledgeable like they indicated in this study, then
there might be no way in which they can encourage and
monitor the use of a policy which they do not even know
about (Fullan, 1991; 1994; Jansen, 2009). Findings clearly
indicate that teachers have not been involved in any way
to make them knowledgeable of the latest policy on the
language of education and how to implement it. As these
teachers are the target group at the grassroots level when
it comes to implementation of the LiEP, failure to involve
them at the initial stages of the policy formulation may have
contributed towards the resistance to the policy changes
(Benson, 2005).
It was evident in the study findings that for the LiEP to
be effectively implemented, participants believed that
practising teachers had to undergo retraining through
various professional development programmes (Rogan
& Grayson, 2003; Siyakwazi & Siyakwazi, 2012; Mtenje,
2013; Ndamba, 2017) as one of the strategies to sensitise
these rural educators on the significance of mother-tongue

South African Journal of African Languages 2018, 38(1): 51–59 57
education. Such reorientation would be necessary since
Zimbabwean educators had been convinced that the 1962
Hope Fountain Experiment, whose focus was on the use of
English as the language of instruction from the first day of
school, had been a success. According to Siyakwazi and
Siyakwazi (2012), professional dialogue had been created
in 1962 as a way of promoting the English-only policy
when the MoPSE vigorously carried out the orientation of
education officers, school managers, school heads, teacher
training tutors and Grades 1 and 2 teachers as a follow up
to the Hope Fountain Experiment.
Conclusion
Analysis of data has shown that eight years after its
inception, teachers, school heads and school inspectors
are ignorant about the existence of the 2006 LiEP. It can
be concluded that failure by policy-makers to come up with
relevant policy dissemination and intervention strategies
to propagate requisite information may have contributed
towards the failure by rural primary school teachers to
determine the reason for changing from the English-
only policy, making it difficult, if not impossible for them to
embrace and implement a policy which they do not know.
Recommendations
It is recommended that efforts have to be made to devote
serious attention to policy advocacy and the employment of
effective dissemination mechanisms in the form of circulars,
policy guidelines and various staff development strategies
in a bid to make teachers aware of the expectations
of policy-makers (Kosonen, 2013; Kioko et al., 2014;
Trudell, 2016). In order to allow teachers to feel involved
in the implementation of the LiEP, policy-makers should
consult policy implementers as a way of sensitisation and
advocacy on the pedagogical advantages for the shift from
an English-only policy to the use of the mother language in
the education of primary school learners, particularly in rural
areas where English is seldom heard outside the school
premises.
Before efforts are made to enforce the use of the mother
tongue, educational materials should be made available to
all rural primary schools for use by teachers and learners.
As translation and reprinting of materials was considered an
expensive endeavour, the government could source external
funding, since participants indicated that non-governmental
organisations such as UNICEF had already donated
textbooks in English. These books could be translated
into the mother tongue, specifically for the benefit of rural
primary school learners. Zimbabwean universities that offer
teacher education programmes are appropriately placed to
spearhead research and to carry out experiments on mother-
tongue education. In Thailand, one project based on the
principle of long-term use of the first language in learning
was initiated by Mahidol University, while the other got
technical support from Payap University (Kosonen, 2013).
Within the African context, Koch, Landon, Jackson and Foli
(2009) report on the success of a small-scale longitudinal
Additive Bi-Lingual Education (ABLE) Project started in 2003
at a rural primary school in the Eastern Cape, South Africa,
which was developed in response to the 1997 South African
additive multilingual language-in-education policy.
Popularising the mother-tongue policy can also be done
through government-sponsored staff development workshops
for educators at district, cluster and school levels to make
them aware of the policy requirements and to equip them
with the necessary skills to implement a bilingual education
policy. Through these policy dissemination mechanisms and
intervention strategies, this may allow rural primary school
teachers to promote balanced bilingualism in their classrooms
and to reduce the bias against the mother language, a
mentality which may have resulted from colonial experiences.
References
Alexander N. 2004. The politics of language planning in
post-apartheid South Africa. Language Problems and Language
Planning 28(2): 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.28.2.02ale
Alidou H, Boly A, Brock-Utne B, Diallo YS, Heugh K, Wolff HE.
2006. Optimizing learning and education in Africa – the language
factor. A stock-taking research on mother tongue and bilingual
education in sub-Saharan Africa. Association for the Development
of Education in Africa (ADEA). Paris: UNESCO Institute for
Education.
Baker C. 2006. Foundations of bilingual education (4th edn). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Ball J, Mcivor O. 2013. Canada’s Big Chill: Indigenous
languages in education. In: Benson C, Kosonen K (eds),
Language issues in comparative education. Inclusive
teaching and learning in non-dominant languages and
cultures. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. pp. 19–38. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-6209-218-1_2
Bamgbose A. 1991. Language and the nation. The language
question in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Bamgbose A. 2009. Foreword. In: Broke-Utne B, Skattum I
(eds), Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and
transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 13–14.
Banda F. 2000. The dilemma of the mother tongue: Prospects
for bilingual education in South Africa. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 13(1): 51–66. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07908310008666589
Bangura AK. 2014. Domesticating mathematics in the African mother
tongue. The Journal of Pan African Studies 6(7): 1–47.
Benson C. 2005. The importance of mother-tongue based schooling
for educational quality. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
Benson C, Kosonen K (eds). 2013. Language issues in comparative
education. Inclusive teaching and learning in non-dominant
languages and cultures. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Blommaert J. 2006. Sociolinguistic Scales. Working Papers in Urban
Language and Literacies. Paper 37: 1–15.
Brock-Utne B, Mercer M. 2014. Using African languages for
democracy and lifelong learning in Africa: A post-2015 challenge
and the work of CASAS. International Review of Education 60:
777–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9448-7
Brock-Utne B, Skattum I. 2009. Languages and education in Africa:
A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford: Cambridge
University Press.
Brynard PA. 2005. Policy implementation: Lessons for service
delivery. African Association for Public Administration and
Management 27th AAPAM Annual Round Table Conference,
Zambezi Sun Hotel, Livingstone, Zambia: 5–9 December 2005.

Ndamba and van Wyk58
Chilisa B. 2012. Indigenous research methodologies. London:
SAGE.
Chimhundu H. 2010. Background to languages as a constitutional
issue in Zimbabwe, 1998–2010. Paper presented at a Training
Workshop for Constitution Outreach Teams. Harare, 11–15
January.
Chivhanga E. 2012. Use of ChiShona as a medium of instruction in
the teaching of mathematics in primary schools. Unpublished PhD
thesis. University of South Africa, South Africa.
Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. 2011. Research methods in
education (7th edn). London: Routledge.
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (no. 20). 2013. Harare:
Zimbabwe Government Printer.
Cummins J. 2005. Language issues and educational change. In:
Hargreaves A (ed.), Extending educational change: International
handbook of educational change. Netherlands: Springer. pp.
160–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4453-4_8
Desai ZK. 2012. A case for mother tongue education? Unpublished
PhD thesis. University of the Western Cape, South Africa.
Director’s Circular Number 26 of 28 June. 2007. Policy guidelines on
the teaching of local languages in primary and secondary schools
in Zimbabwe. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
Donald D, Lazarus S, Lolwana P. 2010. Educational psychology in
social context: Ecosystemic applications in southern Africa. Cape
Town: Oxford University Press.
Education Act. 1987. Languages to be taught in schools. [Chapter
25: 04] Amendment No. 2 of 2006 Part X11 Section 62. Harare:
Government Printer.
Ferguson G. 2013. The language of instruction issue: Reality,
aspiration and the wider context. In: Mcllwraith H (ed.), Multilingual
education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba language-in-education
conference. London: British Council. pp. 17–22.
Foley A. 2008. ‘Mother-tongue education in South Africa’. Paper
presented as part of the English and multilingualism in South
African Society at the PanSALB mini-conference, Collosseum
Hotel, Pretoria. 29 February. 2008
Fullan MG. 1991. The new meaning of educational change (2nd
edn). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Fullan MG. 1994. Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies
for educational reform. In: Elmore RF, Fuhrman SH (eds), The
governance of curriculum. Alexandria: ASCD Publications. pp.
186–202.
Ghazali K. 2010. National identity and minority languages. UN
Chronicle 3: 1–5.
Gora RB. 2013. Continuity and change: Towards a national language
policy for education in Zimbabwe. Online Journal of Social Science
Research 2(5): 123–129.
Gotosa K, Rwodzi M, Mhlanga G. 2013. Language in education: A
critical review of current proposals for official mother tongue use in
Zimbabwean classrooms. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science 3(14): 88–94.
Greenhalgh S, Shumba O. 2014. Influence of indigenous language
on the mastery of scientific concepts and vocabulary: A review
and analysis of the literature. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational
Research 29(2): 185–206.
Gudyanga E, Wadesango N, Dzirikure L. 2015. Parents’ and
teachers’ perceptions on the use of language in early childhood
development in Norton District. International Journal of
Educational Sciences 11(2): 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09
751122.2015.11890388
James C, Jones N. 2008. A case study of the mis-management of
educational change: An interpretation from an affective standpoint.
Journal of Educational Change 9: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10833-007-9030-1.
Jansen H. 2009. Curriculum. Organising knowledge for the
classroom (2nd edn). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Kamwangamalu NM. 2004. The language policy/language economics
interface and mother-tongue education in post-apartheid South
Africa. Language Problems & Language Planning 28(2): 131–146.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.28.2.03kam
Kamwangamalu NM. 2009. Reflections on the language policy
balance sheet in Africa. Language Matters 40(2): 133–144. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10228190903188567
Kioko A, Ndung’u RW, Njoroge MC, Mutiga J. 2014. Mother tongue
and education in Africa: Publicising the reality. Multilingual
Education 4(18): 1–11.
Koch E, Landon J, Jackson MJ, Foli C. 2009. First brushstrokes:
Initial comparative results on the Additive Bilingual Education
Project (ABLE). Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies 27(1): 93–111. https://doi.org/10.2989/
SALALS.2009.27.1.8.756
Kosonen K. 2013. The use of non-dominant languages in education
in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. Two steps forward, one
step back. In: Benson C, Kosonen K (eds.), Language issues
in comparative education. Inclusive teaching and learning
in non-dominant languages and cultures. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers. pp. 39–58.
Le Mottee S. 2008. Language in education. In: Open Society
Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA). Opening societies through
advocacy. OPENSPACE 2(3): 32–38.
Linton A, Jimenez TR. 2009. Contexts for bilingualism among
U.S.-born Latinos. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(6): 967–995.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870802337351
Magwa W. 2008. Language policy and practice in post-colonial
Zimbabwe: Is it a case of new wine in old skins? A critical review.
Occasional Paper No. 42. Cape Town: The Centre for Advanced
Studies of African Society (CASAS).
Magwa W. 2015. Attitudes towards the use of indigenous African
languages of instruction in education: A case of Zimbabwe.
Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research 2(1):
1–16.
Makoni SB. 2012. Language and human rights discourses in Africa:
Lessons from the African experience. Journal of Multicultural
Discourses 7(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.5
95493.
Maseko B, Dhlamini N. 2014. Mother-tongue instruction for lower
primary school level in Zimbabwe: A half-hearted commitment
to the development of her indigenous languages. Journal of
Education and Practice 5(6): 59–65.
Matsinhe SF. 2013. African languages as a viable factor in Africa’s
quest for integration and development: The view from ACALAN.
In: Mcllwraith H (ed.), Multilingual education in Africa: Lessons
from the Juba language-in-education conference. London: British
Council. pp. 23–36.
Mavesera M. 2009. Empowerment through language: Exploring
possibilities of using African languages and literature to
promote sociocultural and economic development in Zimbabwe.
Unpublished PhD thesis. University of South Africa, South Africa.
Mazuruse M. 2016. Interrogating paradoxes in the multilingual
provisions of the new 2013 Zimbabwean Constitution. Namibia
CPD Journal For Educators (NCPDJE) 3(1): 80–93.
Mcllwraith H (ed.). 2013. Multilingual education in Africa: Lessons
from the Juba Language-in-Education Conference. London:
British Council.
McMillan JH, Schumacher S. 2010. Research in education:
Evidence-based inquiry (7th edn). Boston: Pearson Education.
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. Curriculum Framework
for Primary and Secondary Education (2015–2022). Government
of Zimbabwe.
Mtenje LM. 2008. Language policies in the SADC region:
Stock-taking and prospects. In: Open Society Initiative for
Southern Africa (OSISA). Opening societies through advocacy.
OPENSPACE 2(3): 24–31.

South African Journal of African Languages 2018, 38(1): 51–59 59
Mtenje A. 2013. Developing a language policy in an African country:
Lessons from the Malawi experience. In: Mcllwraith H (ed.),
Multilingual education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba Language-
in-education conference. London: British Council. pp. 95–102.
Mustapha A. 2011. Language policy in Nigeria: The reality. Abuja
Journal of English and Literacy Studies 2(1): 216–229.
Mutasa DE (ed.) 2006. African languages in the 21st century: The
main challenges. Pretoria: Simba Guru Publishers.
Ndamba GT. 2017. Mother-tongue education and bilingual classroom
practice in postcolonial settings: Teacher concerns and proposed
interventions. African Perspectives of Research in Teaching and
Learning 1(1): 22–38.
Ndamba GT, Sithole JC, van Wyk MM. 2017. Competing purposes:
Mother tongue education benefits versus economic interests in
rural Zimbabwe. International Indigenous Policy Journal 8(1):
1–22.
Ndawi O, Maravanyika O. 2011. Curriculum and its building blocks:
Concepts and processes. Gweru: Mambo Press.
Ndimande-Hlongwa N, Ndebele H. 2017. Embracing African
languages as indispensable resources through the promotion of
multilingualism. Per Linguam 33(1): 67–82.
Ngefac A. 2010. Linguistic choices in postcolonial multilingual
Cameroon. Nordic Journal of African Studies 19(3): 149–164.
Nkomo D. 2008. Language in education and language development
in Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies 26(3): 351–362. https://doi.org/10.2989/
SALALS.2008.26.3.4.631
Nkwe T, Marungudzi T. 2015. Teachers’ perspectives on the use of
English as the medium of instruction in Zimbabwean secondary
schools. South African Journal of African Languages 35(1): 43–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2015.1056463
Nyaungwa D. 2013. Exploring the feasibility of using Shona as
a medium of instruction in teaching science in Zimbabwe.
Unpublished PhD thesis. University of South Africa, South Africa.
Nziramasanga C. 1999. Report of the Presidential Commission of
Education and Training. Harare: Zimbabwe Government Printers.
Prinsloo M. 2011. The odd couple: Diverging paths in language
policy and educational practices. Perspectives in Education 29(4):
1–9.
Ratele K. 2006. Postcolonial African methods and interpretation.
In: Terre Blanche M, Durrheim K, Painter D (eds), Research in
practice. Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press. pp. 538–556.
Rivas A. 2005. Postcolonial analysis of educational research
discourse: Creating (Mexican) American children as the ‘Other’.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Texas A & M University, United States
of America.
Rizvi F, Lingard B, Lavia J. 2006. Postcolonialism and education:
Negotiating a contested terrain. Pedagogy, Culture and Society
14(3): 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360600891852
Rogan JM, Grayson DJ. 2003. Towards a theory of curriculum
implementation with particular reference to science education in
developing countries. International Journal of Science Education
25(10): 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145819
Secretary’s Policy Circular No. 1. 2002. Policy Regarding Language
Teaching and Learning. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
Silverman D. 2010. Doing qualitative research (3rd edn). London:
Sage.
Siyakwazi B, Siyakwazi P. 2012. A history of the new approach
to infant education of the 1960s to 1990s in Zimbabwe. Gweru:
Booklove.
Ssentanda ME. 2014. Exploring connections: Reflections on mother-
tongue education in postcolonial Uganda. Stellenbosch Papers
in Linguistics Plus 42: 281–296. https://doi.org/10.5842/42-0-163
Trudell B. 2016. The impact of language policy and practice on
children’s learning: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa.
Nairobi: UNICEF.
Valdiviezo L. 2009. Bilingual intercultural education in indigenous
schools: Ethnography of teacher interpretations of government
policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
12(1): 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802149515
Vygotsky LS. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.