Bilingual Education Policy

Full text

Bilingual Education Policy
Munene Mwaniki, M. Beatriz Arias, and Terrence G. Wiley
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................... 2
The Contemporary Contexts of Bilingual Educational Policy and the Weight of History . . . . . 3
Language Policy Orientations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bi/Multilingual Education in Postcolonial Contexts ............................................. 7
Mother Tongue Learning in Another Tongue .. .............................................. 9
Apartheid Language-in-Education Policy and Practice Relic ................................ 11
Conclusion: The Current State and Future Prospects for Bi/Multilingual Education ........... 12
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 13
Related Articles in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Abstract
The chapter is a critical appraisal of bilingual education policy scholarship and
practice against a backdrop of contestations that characterize determination and
execution of bilingual education goals and the spread of the idea of linguistic
human rights in education –and discourses attendant and consequent to these
processes. A dominant and recurrent motif in bilingual education policy dis-
courses is the assumed analogous relationship between language and the
nation-state and the sometimes integrative, sometimes disruptive role of educa-
tion in this relationship. Resultant bilingual education types have, in practice,
manifested themselves in a range of programs. Invariably, these programs fall
M. Mwaniki (*)
Department of Linguistics and Language Practice & Research Fellow - Institute for Reconciliation
and Social Justice, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa
e-mail: mwanikimm@ufs.ac.za
M.B. Arias •T.G. Wiley
Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: barias@cal.org;twiley@cal.org
#Springer International Publishing AG 2016
O. García et al. (eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Encyclopedia of Language
and Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_3-2
1

within a dyad of language policy orientations, these being promotion/tolerance
and repressive/restrictive. These orientations influence types of educational pro-
grams and their outcomes. Nowhere are these dynamics more pronounced than in
postcolonial contexts –which, from the critical perspective adopted in the
chapter, include, apart from the “usual”contexts in the global south, western
democracies with a colonial past. In these contexts, presumed “mother tongue,”
local language, or minority language becomes both important and problematic in
the conceptualization and implementation of bilingual education policies. In other
instances, even when language-in-education policies are allegedly intended to
increase opportunities for educational access and equity, in practice, they (re)
produce, perpetuate, and entrench unintended outcomes largely inimical to the
progressive goals of bilingual education policies. However, when effectively
implemented, bilingual education policies remain potent tools for social, political,
and economic inclusion of marginalized groups in postcolonial contexts,
irrespective of whether these are in the global north or global south.
Keywords
Bi/Multilingual Education •Bilingual Education Policy •Language Policy Ori-
entations •Postcolonial contexts •Right to education access
Introduction
In this discussion, “bilingual educational policies”include any attempt to strategi-
cally employ two or more languages in instruction for either the purpose of linguistic
accommodation for students who do not speak the language of instruction or to
promote the learning of more than one language to achieve individual, community-
based, societal, or political goals (Baker 2011). The question of who determines
these goals and the extent to which those affected by them have a voice or agency in
the determination of formal policy-making varies greatly around the globe
(Tollefson 2013). Moreover, although linguistic human rights have been recognized
by the United Nations and some nation-states (Spring 2000), there are still many
places where linguistic human rights in education are not recognized or implemented
well, even if rights are recognized (Arias and Wiley forthcoming). Nevertheless,
there is still much that individuals and communities can do in promoting language
learning beyond policies that are officially sanctioned or imposed.
The first section of this chapter provides a brief historical background for the
contemporary context of bi/multilingual education. The second section, addresses
the utility and efficacy of various models of bi/multilingual education as they have
been shaped and classified based on various social, political, or individual educa-
tional goals related to language, literacy, and educational aspirations. The third
section, addresses bi/multilingual education in postcolonial, highly multilingual
contexts in which notions of a student’s presumed “mother tongue”or local language
become both important and problematic in the conceptualization and implementa-
tion of educational policies, even when they are allegedly intended to increase
2 M. Mwaniki et al.

opportunities for educational access and equity. This section also problematizes the
role that dominant languages, such as English, play in relation to opportunities to
promote other languages of instruction for educational advancement through pri-
mary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The concluding section provides a brief assess-
ment of the current state of bi/multilingual education with recommendations for
improving its prospects in the future.
The Contemporary Contexts of Bilingual Educational Policy
and the Weight of History
Within the contemporary context of bilingual educational policy, it is difficult to
explain the various programmatic models and goals for students without reference to
the history of the rise of the nation-state and ethnolinguistic nationalism that has
dominated both the modern and postmodern periods. In particular, it is necessary to
consider the ongoing implications of the nation-state for setting educational policies,
including contemporary bi/multilingual educational policies. With the rise of mod-
ern nation-states came the notion of “native-speaker”and the “imagined”unity
between linguistically homogenous speakers and territorially bound languages
(Anderson 1991; Bonfiglio 2010). Historically, the presumed unity of territory,
language, and dominant ethnic groups –and sometimes race (Hutton 1998)–have
been state-prescribed ingredients for national unity. The efforts to promote the
linguistic unification of modern France have been identified as a critical starting
point for the increased emphasis on national languages; however, antecedents can be
noted earlier in the late fifteenth century in the counsel of the Castilian court scholar,
Antonio de Nebrija (1441–1522), to Queen Isabella of Spain as he implored that
language can be a strategic instrument for both domestic social control as well as the
extension of empire.
This modern emphasis on national and imperial languages represented a break
with prior emphases in the educational uses of languages. Tollefson (2013) has
noted, prior to the rise of modern nation-states, education was generally conducted in
local languages. State-sponsored mass education, itself, however, generally followed
the rise of the nation-state. Classical languages were typically used for the education
of elites, e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Latin, Persian, among others (Ostler 2006), or as
lingua francas in trade and governance (Ostler 2011). During the colonial expansion
of early modern empires, traders and missionaries often learned and used local
languages, while exploited laborers and overlords relied on contact languages such
as pidgins. These arose out of necessity for communication in multilingual contexts
where the participants had unequal status and power. As European imperialism
became dominant in large parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas, colonial and
imperial languages were imposed, often to the detriment of indigenous or previously
prestigious languages (Gray and Fiering 2000; Heath 1976; Kaiwar et al. 2009;
Mignolo 2000). Initially, educational access to imperial languages was often limited
to the education of local elites and functionaries, but in later stages of empire, they
were often prescribed more broadly as educational opportunities were extended to
Bilingual Education Policy 3

larger segments of the population (Willensky 2000). Because of their potential for
not only inclusion but also for mass indoctrination and assimilation, dominant
languages, as well as the uncritical promotion of so-called mother tongues, require
close scrutiny (Ricento and Wiley 2002; Wiley 2012).
In countries with significant indigenous populations, including the United States
for example, assimilation into the dominant language has been strategically achieved
through a process of deculturation where the use of indigenous languages was
suppressed (Spring 2012). Only gradually have the linguistic human rights of
indigenous peoples been recognized by the United Nations (UN) through various
declarations (Spring 2000). More rarely are these rights recognized and acted on by
the UN’s member states (Arias and Wiley forthcoming). Although the use of
“mother tongue”education for initial or primary literacy instruction has become
endorsed and used in bilingual education programs, often, the ultimate goal of these
“transitional”programs is to promote instruction in dominant or national languages.
The use of mother tongue education is only an accommodation. Thus, even though
bilingual education is available in many countries, it remains controversial largely
for political reasons, particularly for minoritized, politically subordinated
populations. Often the educational goals for such programs have involved varying
degrees of voluntary, or even coercive, assimilation (Spring 2008).
When considering the types and range of programs that are available under
various “bilingual”labels, one approach has been to try and group or classify
programs based on the relationship of learners to the nation-states in which they
reside. Cummins (1997), for example, identified five basic program types of what
falls broadly under the label of bilingual education. These included those programs
“that involved the use of an indigenous Native Language as a medium of instruction”
(p. xii). Programs such as these may be found in the United States and Canada.
Programs that involve the use of a “national minority”language such as “Gaelic in
Ireland and Scotland and Welsh in Wales as well as Basque and Catalonian in Spain”
are a second type; however, these languages may also be considered indigenous
(Cummins 1997, p. xiii). Cummins (1997) identifies a third type of program that is
designed for immigrants. In this category, languages such as Spanish in the United
States come to mind. We should note, however, that Spanish is both an old colonial
language in the United States as well as a language that was widely spoken in areas
later incorporated, namely, those previously belonging to the Spanish Empire, and
subsequently Mexico, prior to the Mexican–American War (1845–1848). In fact,
two-thirds of what would eventually become the United States was at one time part
governed under a Spanish language polity (Macías 2014, p. 14). In many
postcolonial contexts, former colonial languages are now widely used as mediums
of instruction and official languages. Cummins (1997) identified programs for the
deaf and hard-of-hearing as a fourth type of program. He also notes a fifth type of
program, which focuses on promoting bilingual education for those of the majority/
dominant linguistic group, examples include French immersion programs in Canada.
Cummins (1997) also notes some interchangeability in the application of the
labels. Thus, labeling is somewhat arbitrary and individual label types are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. He notes that “it is not meant to do justice to the
4 M. Mwaniki et al.

enormous diversity of program type implemented in a myriad of different sociopo-
litical and sociolinguistic conditions”(p. xv). Acknowledging this problem, we note
that a significantly missing category would include programs that use former
colonial languages in postcolonial contexts. It is particularly important to understand
the relationship of these languages to students’purported mother-tongue(s) as well
as other important national or regional languages and their uses in the curriculum.
Moreover, given the spread of English within global contexts, its dominance has
important implications for educational equity, access (Tollefson 2013) as the empha-
sis on English affects opportunities for the study of other languages and bilingual
and multilingual education more broadly (Spring 2008; Wiley and Artiles 2007).
Language Policy Orientations
Every child should have what Wiley (2007) explains as the “right to access”an
education, which would “[allow] for social, economic, and political participation”
(p. 89). He discusses language policy orientations within an expanded framework
originated from Kloss (1977). Language policies have, throughout time, ranged from
tolerance or promotion-oriented approaches to those of today. Many state policies –
under the guise of being promotion-oriented –are now restrictive in nature. For
example, in political campaigns in California, in 1998, and Arizona, in 2000, efforts
to restrict bilingual education were touted under the guise of “English for the
Children”(Arias and Faltis 2012).
Wiley (2013) identified several language policy orientations which influence the
selection of languages in schools. By viewing language policies in terms of the
desired outcome –promotion, tolerance, restriction, or repression –we can anticipate
the type of support there will be for student bilingualism and teacher preparation for
language minority students. Restrictive- and repressive-oriented language policies
both perceive minority languages as a problem. They differ by degree. Repressive
language policy orientations were exemplified in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
schools in the United States which sanctioned the use of indigenous languages and
fostered linguistic assimilation (Wiley 2007). Restrictive language policies do not
seek to eliminate the language, but they set sanctions on the use of minority
language. Tolerant language policies are neutral with regard to minority language
use, neither restricting nor supporting it. Promotion-oriented language policies, in
theory, view language as a resource and provide financial and legislative support for
development of either minority or dominant languages. In practice, however, it is
often only the dominant language that is promoted. Minority languages are more
likely to be used for “expediency”as in transitional bilingual programs that use a
minority language as a temporary means of moving students to the dominant
language.
In the United States, for example, there is variation among language policy
orientations. Some promotion-oriented policy states would describe themselves as
“English Plus,”stressing the importance of proficiency in more than one language:
New Mexico, Oregon, and Rhode Island (Menken 2008). Several states, including
Bilingual Education Policy 5

Illinois and Texas, (see Crawford 2004) promote the expediency model, allowing
short-term transitional and developmental bilingual education, and dual language
and English as a second language programs for those students who are classified as
English language learners (ELLs). Other states such as Nebraska demonstrate a
tolerance model, not mandating or sanctioning bilingual programs. Finally, there
are the English-Only states –Arizona, California, and Massachusetts –which
display a restrictive language policy orientation, prohibiting and proscribing the
use of L1 in classrooms. These restrictive language oriented state policies have
emerged in the last two decades in the United States as the English-Only Movement
(Wiley and Wright 2004) made its way through ballot measures to the classroom
(Wright and Choi 2006). While all three states mandate English as the official
language of instruction, Arizona is the most restrictive, sanctioning the use of
students’native language in classrooms and prescribing a teacher preparation
endorsement that promotes a restrictive language policy.
Language policy orientations influence the type of educational programs
designed for language minority students. As Table 1below indicates, programs
which promote assimilation for language minority students impose the majority
language or recognize the minority language for a very limited period of time.
This is the case with transitional bilingual education (TBE), where the goal is not
bilingualism but monolingualism.
Reference Baker 1996, Tables 1, and 2
Conversely, where the goal is pluralism and enrichment, we see a promotion
language orientation which supports bilingualism and biliteracy.
Table 1 Weak educational program options for language minorities
Type of program
Typical
child in
program
Language of the
classroom
Societal and
educational
aim
Language and/or
literacy aim
Submersion (a.k.a
structured english
immersion)
Language
minority
Imposes majority
language
Assimilation Monolingualism
in English
Submersion (with
withdrawal ESL)
Language
minority
Imposes majority
language
Assimilation Monolingualism
in English
Segregationist Language
minority
Minority language
(forced, no choice)
Apartheid Monolingualism
Transitional Language
minority
Moves from
minority to
majority language
Assimilation Relative
monolingualism
in English
Majority language
plus foreign language
Language
majority
Majority language
with L2/FL lessons
Limited
enrichment
Limited
bilingualism
Separatist Language
minority
Minority language
(out of choice)
Detachment/
autonomy
Limited
bilingualism
This table is adapted from Baker (1996, p.172)
L2 second language, L1 first language, FL foreign language
See pp. 172–197 for elaboration
6 M. Mwaniki et al.

Recent research by Collier and Thomas (2012) in the United States shows that
two-way dual language education has had a clear positive impact on native English
speakers and English learners. They maintain that when ELLs get bogged down in
ESL (English as a Second Language) or mainstream English classes, where the
curriculum is only instructed in English, only half of the achievement gap closes and
they tend to fall further behind in school. Two-way dual language education, when
implemented properly, prevents this from happening; Collier and Thomas (2012)
argue that two-way dual language education is the only model that allows English
learners to fully close the achievement gap and even outperform their native English-
speaking classmates on standardized tests. Two-way dual language instruction
allows students, whether they are heritage speakers of a minority language or native
English speakers, to learn English and their native language through all content areas
in the implemented curriculum. This method encourages students to increase their
vocabulary across various areas of study and to develop a deeper academic profi-
ciency than they could with traditional foreign language instruction, which focuses
more on studying the language instead of actively using it.
Bi/Multilingual Education in Postcolonial Contexts
Almost half a century after the transition to political independence in much of the
former colonial world, the concept of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992,1996)
and associated constructs such as “elite closure”(Scotton 1990; Kamwangamalu
2001) as adequate frameworks in explaining the language situation in this geopolit-
ical area has been found to be increasingly wanting and elitist fundamentally because
these frameworks largely ignore local dynamics and agency. The neat taxonomy of
Table 2 Strong educational program options for both language minorities and majority children
Type of
program Typical child
Language of the
classroom
Societal and
educational aim
Language
and/or
literacy aim
Immersion Language
majority
Bilingual with
initial emphasis
on L2
Pluralism and
enrichment
Bilingualism
and biliteracy
Maintenance /
heritage
language
Language
minority
Bilingual with
emphasis on L1
Maintenance /
pluralism and
enrichment
Bilingualism
and biliteracy
Two-way/dual
language
Mixed language
minority and
majority
Minority and
majority
languages
Maintenance/
pluralism and
enrichment
Bilingualism
and biliteracy
Mainstream
bilingual
Language
majority
Two majority
languages
Maintenance/
pluralism and
enrichment
Bilingualism
and biliteracy
This table is adapted from Baker (1996, p.172)
L2 second language, L1 first language, FL foreign language
See pp. 172–197 for elaboration
Bilingual Education Policy 7

bilingualism and bilingual education proposed and expounded on by Baker (2011)
and García (2009) do not necessarily capture what actually happens in some
instances at the coalface of bi/multilingual education policy implementation in
postcolonial contexts. In fact, García (2009, p. 117) echoes this view by observing
that “the very neat frameworks and types of bilingual education that were developed
in the second half of the twentieth century started to leak, as the concept of diglossia
itself was questioned, and as features of one type were combined with features of
another to better fit the situation at hand, and especially to adapt to the complex
bilingualism of students.”This deduction reflects advances in bilingualism and
bilingual education research and scholarship in which “during the last decades of
the twentieth century, western scholarship has slowly become aware of the vast
linguistic complexity of the East, of Africa, [and] of the developing world”(García
2009, p. 116). As Banda (2009, p. 1) eloquently argues, “one of the main drawbacks
of current policy [in postcolonial contexts] is that it is still based on Western and
colonial notions of multilingualism, which basically involves multiple
monolingualisms.”The net result of this policy approach over successive develop-
ment management cycles in postcolonial contexts is that “languages which have
existed side by side for significant periods of time, complementing and
supplementing each other in a multilingual symbiosis, are suddenly cast as compet-
ing for spaces. Additionally, multilingual communities are then erroneously charac-
terized as made up of distinctive monolingual enclaves”(Banda 2009, p. 2).
In these settings, students’presumed “mother tongue”or local language become
both important and problematic in the conceptualization and implementation of
educational policies. In other instances, even when the language-in-education poli-
cies are allegedly intended to increase opportunities for educational access and
equity, in practice, they (re)produce, perpetuate, and entrench unintended outcomes
which are, by and large, inimical to some of the progressive goals of bi/multilingual
education policy. On the other hand, there is the often understated ingenuity of
education practitioners in postcolonial contexts, who, in complex settings character-
ized by policy absence and ambivalence coupled with limited teaching and learning
resources, go out on a limb to operationalize a semblance of bi/multilingual educa-
tion in these contexts.
These emergent discourses in bilingualism and bilingual education research and
scholarship and how they apply to the highly multilingual postcolonial contexts are
in line with postcolonial theorizing which entails “an attitude of critical engagement
with colonialisms after-effects and its constructions of knowledge”(Radcliffe 1997,
p. 1331) in search of a “conceptual frame which works to destabilize dominant
discourses in the metropolitan west, to challenge inherent assumptions, and to
critique the material and discursive legacies of colonialism”(Crush 1994). While
the discussion in this section adopts postcolonial theorizing as the overarching
theoretical scaffolding, it is also conscious of the view that “post-colonialism as a
theoretical and analytical perspective includes a diverse range of perspectives:
historically based critiques of colonial discourses, anthropology’s critical revision
of its own colonial complicity, accounts of formations such as diasporas, studies of
the cultural productions of colonized peoples and, not least, the various articulations
8 M. Mwaniki et al.

of those who are themselves speaking from the margins”(Jacobs 1996, p. 26).
However, a core theme of postcolonial theory is “the intent to challenge the logic
of linear ‘development’and its ‘entourage of binaries’” (McClintock 1992,p.85
cited in Jacobs 1996, p. 26). As a way of integrating these insights on postcolonial
theory and the already articulated complexities attendant to bi/multilingual education
policy in postcolonial contexts, the following discussion presents two vignettes from
postcolonial contexts –from Kenya and South Africa –while remaining cognizant of
the reality that the historical trajectories of each of the polities in the postcolonial
world with their critical junctures (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012) nuance and
instantiate language policy generally and bi/multilingual education policy specifi-
cally. The vignette on Kenya is entitled “Mother tongue learning in another tongue”
and the one on South Africa is titled “Apartheid language-in-education policy and
practice relic”.
Mother Tongue Learning in Another Tongue
At the heart of eastern Kenya, one will find Mbeere which is part of modern-day
Embu County. Geolinguistically, Mbeere is an ethnolinguistic enclave surrounded
by larger ethnolinguistic communities. To the north and the northeast, it shares
borders with Embu and Meru, and Tharaka, respectively. To the east and south, it
shares borders with Kitui and Machakos, respectively. To the west, it shares borders
with Kirinyaga and Murang’a. The conterminous nature of Mbeere in relation to
these other ethnolinguistic communities notwithstanding, Kimbeere –the language
of the Mbeere people –is a fairly stable language without recorded or noticeable
evidence of language shift. Since independence in 1963 and contrary to the Kenyan
language policy that calls “for the use of the mother tongue or ‘language of the
catchment area’in the first three grades of primary school”(Trudell and Piper 2014,
p. 11; Kenya Institute of Education 1992, p. 143) as well as further outlining that “in
linguistically homogenous school neighborhoods, the indigenous language of the
area is to be used from Standard 1 to 3 [and] in linguistically heterogeneous school
neighborhoods, such as is the case in urban areas, the national language Kiswahili or
English is to be used”(Bunyi 2005, p. 131), Kimbeere-speaking teachers and pupils
have had to contend with Kikuyu mother tongue learning materials. Much of Mbeere
consists of relatively rural-bound communities thus making it highly linguistically
homogenous. In this setting, having Kimbeere mother tongue learning materials in
the first years of schooling would not only be a legitimate expectation but an
expression of official policy. In line with official policy, a worst case scenario
would be to have Kiswahili and/or English mother tongue teaching and learning
materials; not another Kenyan indigenous language –Kikuyu –as the language of
mother tongue teaching and learning. Attempts at justifying the retention of Kikuyu
mother tongue learning materials in Mbeere for much of Kenya’s postcolonial period
can be found in the research literature such as Ogechi et al. (2012); and they mainly
hinge on the erroneous view that Kimbeere and Kikuyu “have minor structural
differences at the phonological and morphological levels but these do not imply
Bilingual Education Policy 9

the existence of different languages”(Mwangi 2012, p. 20). At morpho-
phonological, lexical-semantic, and discourse levels, Kimbeere is a distinct language
with only marginal intelligibility with Kikuyu. At a policy level, the fact that Kikuyu
is not spoken in Mbeere as “the mother tongue,”“the language of the catchment
area,”or “the indigenous language of the area”only makes the use of Kikuyu
learning materials in the first three grades of schooling in Mbeere the more tenuous
didactics-wise and pedagogy-wise. It is hardly coincidental that decision-making
appertaining to mother tongue education in central and eastern Kenya during the
postcolonial period, at policy and program levels, has largely been at the behest of
Kikuyu elites, drawn from the dominant political grouping in regional and Kenyan
politics since independence.
There are several insights into bi/multilingual education in postcolonial contexts
which can be drawn from this vignette. First, the fact that more than half a century
after Kenya’s independence, Kimbeere teaching and learning materials have not
been developed is a microcosm of “mother tongue education quandary”(Mwaniki
2014, p. 1) in postcolonial contexts in which “planning tends to be equated with
policy-making alone, while implementation tends to be treated with lack of serious
concern or even downright levity”(Bamgbose 1999, p. 18). This approach also
entails “‘implementation avoidance strategy’which consists of policy-makers for-
mulating a policy, which they have no intention of implementing (or know they
cannot be implemented), building into the policy escape clauses, and leaving
implementation strategies unspecified as to modalities, time frame, and measures
to ensure compliance”(Bamgbose 1999, p. 19). Second, the assumption that colonial
languages adopted as languages of teaching and learning in much of the postcolonial
world are the only hindrance to the actualization of bi/multilingual education does
not always hold true. Dominant indigenous languages are worthy accomplices in
subverting the implementation of bi/multilingual education for minority children;
often riding on the power of the governing elite (and their networks in academia/
research) to determine what code constitutes a language/dialect and thus a mother
tongue worthy of being included in the curriculum and in effect worthy of being
resourced from the national fiscus. A third insight from this vignette would entail an
invitation to critically question the complicity of postcolonial elites, especially from
dominant political and ethnolinguistic groups, in pursuing educational policies that
are inimical to the educational needs of ethnolinguistic minority children as part of
colonialism’s aftereffects. The “policy”that keeps Kikuyu teaching and learning
materials in Mbeere schools more than 50 years after Kenya’s independence is a
material and discursive legacy of postcolonial indigenous domination of minorities.
A last insight, but not any less important, relates to how teachers and learners
negotiate the problematic learning situation created by the lack of Kimbeere teaching
and learning materials. In line with research literature on bilingualism and bilingual
education, the concept of “diglossia without bilingualism”(Fishman 1972,1980;
Baker 2011) could be used to explain how teachers and learners negotiate this
problematic situation. However, because the use of Kikuyu learning materials is
restricted to mother tongue classes, and not other subjects or other interactions
outside the classroom, the most apt description would be “restricted diglossia
10 M. Mwaniki et al.

without bilingualism,”a description that would explain why there is no noticeable
Kimbeere-Kikuyu bilingualism or language shift to Kikuyu. In this complex setting,
in which teachers are seemingly left to their own devices, the implementation and
actualization of a semblance to bilingual education rests almost entirely on the
ingenuity/circumspection of teachers in implementing official policy. This in itself
is a matter for further research.
Apartheid Language-in-Education Policy and Practice Relic
Jan Blommaert (1996) noted a few years after South Africa’s democratic transition
that “the historical changes in South Africa triggered a new enthusiasm among
language scholars, and almost automatically drove them into the direction of lan-
guage planning issues because of the nature of the political-ideological debate
surrounding the end of apartheid”(p. 203). Fascination with South Africa’sofficial
languages dispensation endures to the present because for many researchers,
South Africa, with its tempestuous history that saw “342 years of white domination,
some of it under Dutch and British colonialism, and some under indigenous
Afrikaner-led apartheid”(Venter 2009,p.3)isa“near perfect”social laboratory in
which language dynamics are not only critical but catalytic. Despite the legitimate
fascination, it masks the persistence of apartheid era language-in-education policies
and practices especially within a section of South Africa’s higher education sector
often referred to as Historically Afrikaans-medium Universities (HAUs), which in
itself is an aberration because some of these universities have strong and well-
documented “English as a language of teaching and learning”history (cf. Du Plessis
2006). Antecedents of these apartheid era language-in-education policies in HAUs,
known as parallel-medium education, are traceable to “Milnerism”;“a rabid, racist
and narrow ethnic chauvinism, based essentially on shared language, religious
orientation and alleged descent among white Afrikaans-speaking people”which
“helped to entrench the racist version of Afrikaner nationalism that eventually
gave birth to the political policy of apartheid”(Alexander 2003, p. 8). A lasting
legacy of these developments on language-in-education in HAUs is what Reagan
(1987, p. 299) aptly refers to as “politics of linguistic apartheid”which “rests on two
interrelated pillars: the ‘ideology of apartheid’and the ‘mother tongue principle’”
(Reagan 1987, p. 300). Kamwangamalu (1997, p. 236) corroborates these views by
noting that “language-in-education policies in South Africa have historically been
based on racial discrimination by one segment of South Africa’s population, the
whites, against another segment, the blacks.”In modern-day South Africa HAUs,
these ideological and policy undercurrents have found expression, in policy and
practice, through parallel-medium education in which Afrikaans and the so-called
English-speaking students (students from all other ethnolinguistic groups) attend
different lectures often under different tutors; and in the odd case, with language
facilitation in lectures.
When this peculiar higher education learning and teaching arrangement is ana-
lyzed against the typology of bilingual education (Baker 2011, pp. 209–210), it falls
Bilingual Education Policy 11

under “monolingual forms of education for bilinguals.”Under this typology,
parallel-medium education will aptly fit into the “segregationist”type of program;
with the typical student type being “from a language minority”(cf. Henrard 2001 for
a detailed argument as to why all ethnolinguistic groups in South Africa are
minorities); with the language of the lecture room being “minority language (forced,
no choice), by default”; with the societal and educational aim being “apartheid”; and
the aim in language outcome being “monolingualism”. This analysis is corroborated
by Du Plessis (2006, p. 107) who unwittingly observes that “the preference for
parallel-medium education creates the impression that the historically Afrikaans-
medium universities are more interested in survival than in the notion of bilingual
higher education.”The persistence of these language-in-education policies at the
threshold of the third decade of democracy demonstrate “the extent to which
South Africa’s education system remains unreformed and continues to perpetuate
social injustice(s), especially in its higher education sector”(Mwaniki 2012, p. 214).
Against the backdrop of South Africa’s tempestuous history as well as peculiar
contemporary circumstances, a few insights into bi/multilingual education in
postcolonial contexts could be drawn from this vignette. First, in a postcolonial
context like South Africa in which language “has effectively been used to serve the
ends of social exclusion for some and social inclusion for others”as well as being
“deployed to serve ends that neither entrench nor deepen social justice”(Mwaniki
2012, p. 214), an actualization of bi/multilingual education policies that seek to
increase opportunities for educational access and equity in higher education remain,
to paraphrase Furlong and Cartmel (2009, p. 4), is a political bullet that few
university administrators in HAUs are prepared to bite, partially because it would
involve the imposition of restrictions on opportunities of their families and members
of their social and economic networks, which could alienate a large section of their
political base. A second insight which logically flows from the preceding one is that
bi/multilingual education is often a site for the (re)production of asymmetrical power
relations and discourses in postcolonial contexts. Thirdly, under the weight of history
and when not managed in a progressive manner that takes into account access and
equity parameters, bi/multilingual education has the potential to accentuate
ethnolinguistic cleavages in postcolonial contexts.
Conclusion: The Current State and Future Prospects
for Bi/Multilingual Education
Advances in politics and sociology of language scholarship may not yet be at a point
of developing a problematique, i.e., “a structural model of relationships among
members of a set of problems”(Warfield and Perino 1999, p. 221), to fully account
for the often problematic permutations attendant to bi/multilingual education in
postcolonial contexts, but a critical engagement with the material and discursive
aftereffects of the colonial experience (including indigenization of colonial con-
structs and discourses) on policy and practice would be a good starting point. A key
aspect of this endeavor would be to expose and interrogate the complicity of politics
12 M. Mwaniki et al.

and sociology of language scholarship in perpetuating colonial legacies in
bi/multilingual education in postcolonial contexts. These observations notwithstand-
ing, bi/multilingual education in postcolonial contexts remains a potent tool for
social, political, and economic inclusion of marginalized groups.
Cross-References
▶Bilingual Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies and Practice
▶Bilingualism in South Africa: Reconnecting with Ubuntu translanguaging
Related Articles in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education
Bernard Spolsky: Language Policy in Education: History, Theory, Praxis. In Volume:
Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
James W. Tollefson: Language Planning in Education. In Volume: Language Policy
and Political Issues in Education
Luis E. López: Decolonization and Bilingual/Intercultural Education. In Volume:
Language Policy and Political Issues in Education
Teresa McCarty and Stephen May (eds): Language Policy and Political Issues in
Education (Volume 1)
References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and
poverty. London: Profile Books.
Alexander, N. (2003). Language education policy, national and sub-national identities in
South Africa. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
London: Verso.
Arias, M. B., & Faltis, C. (2012). Implementing language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical, and
current practices in SEI. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Arias, M. B., & Wiley, T. G. (2015). Forty years after Lau: The continuing assault on educational
human rights in the United States with implications for linguistic minorities. In: Languages
problems and language planning, 39(3), 227–244.
Baker, C. (1996). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Bamgbose, A. (1999). African language development and language planning. Social Dynamics, 25
(1), 13–30.
Banda, F. (2009). Critical perspectives on language planning and policy in Africa: Accounting for
the notion of multilingualism. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS, 20(3), 1–11.
Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic
ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems & Language Planning, 20, 199–222.
Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker. New York:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Bilingual Education Policy 13

Bunyi, G. (2005). Language classroom practices in Kenya. In A. Lin & P. W. Martin (Eds.),
Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 131–152).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2012). English language learners- What really works for English
language learners: Research-based practices for principals. In What every principal needs to
know to create equitable and excellent schools (pp. 155–173). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.).
Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
Crush, J. (1994). Post-colonialism, de-colonization, and geography. In A. Godlewska & N. Smith
(Eds.), Geography and empire (pp. 333–350). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cummins, J. (1997). Introduction. In J. Cummins & D. Corson (Eds.) Bilingual education. Vol. 5.
International Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (pp. xi–xiv). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Du Plessis, T. (2006). From monolingual to bilingual higher education: The repositioning of
historically Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africa. Language Policy, 5(1), 87–113.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language. Rowley: Newbury House.
Fishman, J. A. (1980). Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and as societal phenomena.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1,3–5.
Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2009). Higher education and social justice. Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). Moving from failure to a new vision of language policy. In
P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive
language policies (pp. 216–226). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garcia, E. E., Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. P. (2009). The demographic imperative. Educational
Leadership, 66(7), 8–13.
Gray, E. G., & Fiering, N. (2000). The language encounter: 1492–1800. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Heath, S. B. (1976). Colonial language status achievement: Mexico, Peru, and the United States. In
A. Verdoodt & R. Kjolseth (Eds.), Language and sociology. Louvin: Peeters.
Henrard, K. (2001). Language rights and minorities in South Africa. International Journal of
Multicultural Societies, 3(2), 78–98.
Hutton, C. L. (1998). Linguistics and the third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race and the science
of language. London: Routledge.
Jacobs, J. M. (1996). Edge of empire: Postcolonialism and the city. London/New York: Routledge.
Kaiwar, V., Mazumdar, S., & Barnes, A. E. (2009). Antinomies of modernity: Essays on race,
orient, nation. Raleigh: Duke University Press.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997). Multilingualism and education policy in post-apartheid
South Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 21(3), 234–253.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2001). The language planning situation in South Africa. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 2(4), 361–445.
Kenya Institute of Education. (1992). Primary education syllabus (Vol. 1). Nairobi: Republic of
Kenya Ministry of Education.
Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Macías, R. F. (2014). Spanish as the second national language of the United States: Fact, fiction, or
future hope? Review of Research in Education, 38,33–57.
McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term “post-colonialism”.Social Text,
10(2&3), 84–98.
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs. Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and
border thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mwangi, P. I. (2012). A case for the harmonization of Kikuyu, Kiembu and Kimbeere phonology
and orthography. In N. O. Ogechi, J. A. N. Oduor, & P. I. Mwangi (Eds.), The harmonization
14 M. Mwaniki et al.

and standardization of Kenyan languages: Orthography and other aspects (pp. 20–38). Cape
Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS).
Mwaniki, M. (2012). Language and social justice in South Africa’s higher education: Insights from
a South African university. Language and Education, 26(3), 213–232.
Mwaniki, M. (2014). Mother tongue education in primary teacher education in Kenya: A language
management critique of the quota system. Multilingual Education, 4(11), 1–17.
Ogechi, N. O., Oduor, J. A. N., & Mwangi, P. I. (2012). The harmonization and standardization of
Kenyan languages: Orthography and other aspects. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies
of African Society (CASAS).
Ostler, N. (2006). Empires of the word: A language history of the world. London: Harper.
Ostler, N. (2011). The last lingua franca. London: Pergamum.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1996). Linguistic imperialism: African perspectives. ELT Journal, 50(2), 160–167.
Radcliffe, S. A. (1997). Different heroes: Genealogies of postcolonial geographies. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space., 29, 1331–1333.
Reagan, T. G. (1987). The politics of linguistic apartheid: Language policies in Black education in
South Africa. The Journal of Negro Education, 56(3), 299–312.
Ricento, T., & Wiley, T. G. (2002). Editor’s introduction. Language, identity, and education and the
challenges of monoculturalism and globalization. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education,
1(1), 1–7.
Scotton, C. M. (1990). Elite closure as boundary maintenance. In B. Weinstein (Ed.), Language
policy and political development (pp. 25–52). Norwood: Ablex.
Spring, J. (2000). The universal right to education. Justification, definition, and guidelines.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spring, J. (2008). Globalization of education: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Spring, J. (2012). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of
dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tollefson, J. (2013). Language policies in education: Critical issues. London: Routledge.
Trudell, B., & Piper, B. (2014). Whatever the law says: Language policy implementation and early-
grade literacy achievement in Kenya. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(1), 4–21.
Venter, A. (2009). The context of contemporary South African politics. In A. Venter, &
C. Landsberg (Eds.), Government and politics in South Africa (3rd ed., pp. 3–16), Fourth
Impression. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
War field, J. N., & Perino, G. H., Jr. (1999). The problematique: Evolution of an idea. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 16, 221–226.
Wiley, T. G. (2007). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In
O. García & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual education: An introductory reader (pp. 89–107).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Wiley, T. G. (2012). English-only movement. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. London:
Wiley.
Wiley, T. G. (2013). Constructing and deconstructing “illegal”children. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 12(3), 167.
Wiley, T. G., & Artiles, A. (2007). Editor’s introduction: The antinomies of global English and
national pedagogies. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 57–61.
Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy
and politics in the “age of accountability”.Educational Policy, 18(1), 142–168.
Willensky, J. (2000). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on
elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
14(13), 1–75.
Bilingual Education Policy 15