LANGUAGE POLICY AND EDUCATION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

This chapter aims to provide a global perspective on the relations between national language policies and to raise the question of what languages should be taught in schools. The review is presented in order to provide a broad picture of background information on the theory and methods used in this study.

The era of globalisation has brought with it many significant implications for both the learning of languages and education. The teaching of modern languages is becoming a major educational issue around the world. Currently, it is inevitable that English should play a key role as a global language. However, this development has an implication for the use of national language and under many circumstances the use of the local language.

The teaching of national languages and local languages has been under review for many years in many parts of the world. On the one hand, national language education is widely promoted and improved through the development of a language policy and educational planning. On the other hand, there is a deep concern among local people, linguists, teachers and anthropologists about the endangerment of local languages. Local teachers have often criticised the weakness of top down policies introduced by central governments which do not bring about advantages of the maintenance of local languages.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. The first section discusses important issues that are associated with language policies and language planning in an educational context. The second section considers information background on multilingualism and the associated educational issues. The third section examines language shift and maintenance and the last section focuses on indigenous language policies and the educational programs that flow from them.

Language Policy and Language Planning

Phillipson (2002) indicated that there is a tension between a globalising language and the paramount need to formulate and implement language policies that meet local, cultural, linguistic, political and economic needs. On the other hand, Delors (1996, p.16) argued that one of the great challenges for education in the globalization era is the tension between tradition and modernity. In this view, Teasdale (2000, p.5) suggested that:

This necessary tension is a functional and creative tension. Such a tension is necessary and desirable for the production of both a balance and harmony among the cultures involved. A positive perspective is required to help ease the tensions that exist among the local, national and global cultures.

Djité (1994, p.63-67) argued that language policy and language planning actually refer to many different processes even though they are often used interchangeably and sometimes overlap. Cooper (1989, p.45) in his discussion on language policy, defines language policy as:

The combination of official decisions and prevailing public practices which is related to language education and use. It includes language planning, defined as deliberate efforts to influence the behaviours of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of language codes.

From this definition it is obvious that language policy and language planning has an inseparable relation and common procedures. The government, the community and the schools are the important stakeholders of both language policy and language planning (See Corson, 1990; Ingram 1993). However, it can be argued that the implementation of language policy and language planning requires active involvement of schools.

Generally governments and other authorities make language policy through the deliberate choice(s) that are associated with language usage and social life (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993 Djité, 1994; Annamalai, 2003; Smalicz & Secombe, 2003). The societal level involves the identification of the language for communication problems, the formulation of the different alternatives available and the making of decision related to the language norm (a language or a dialect) to be introduced into the education system. The language level covers the linguistic corpus and the procedures of general standardisation such as the writing of a grammar and the selection of an appropriate lexicon.

Language planning is derived from language policy. The societal level involves the work of carrying out or enforcing decisions made about the selected language norm(s) and the dissemination of this decision through the government, the school system and media (Djité, 1994; Ager, 2001). For example the implementation of planning is carried out through the introduction of selected language norm(s) either as a medium of instruction, or as a subject to be taught in all schools and universities (Coady & Laoire, 2002; Karyolemou, 2003). The implementation procedure involves a sustainable evaluation process followed by re-assessment and by a new assessment of the whole plan to find out where changes to improve the plan may be required as well as to ensure that the stated language policy goals are achieved. Language planning undertakes stylistic and terminological modernisation of the language norms to perform the functions of modern life at the language level (Ingram, 1993).  Meanwhile, Ager (1996, p.1) argued that:

Language planning is important in all types of society, too. In families, and in small, monolingual groups, language is the cement that binds people together and the symbols that repel the outsider and it is important to maintain its uniqueness; in large, multilingual societies, conflicts between different languages often symbolise power relationships between different groups and it is essential for rulers to maintain social control through the linguistic control.

Skutnab-Kangas and Cummins (1988) suggested that the language policies of the government may be classified into four kinds in terms of the implicit or explicit goals of the policy. They are policy of elimination of multilingualism, tolerance of multilingualism, maintenance of multilingualism and promotion of multilingualism.

Language policy is often associated with national cohesion and may prove to be only symbolic and never being fully implemented. It can be restricted by a government’s political will in dealing with improving the language situation. Language planning refers to the actual accomplishment of the task of finding solutions to the identified language problems (Djité, 1994; Smolicz & Secombe 2003).

Kloss (1969) has argued that status planning is concerned with the allocation of language or language varieties to particular functions (for example, as the medium of instruction, the official language, or the vehicles of mass communication). Examples of the allocation of language to new functions are found in the history of all nations. Clear examples include: the shift from Dutch to Bahasa Indonesia as the language of government administration in Indonesia; the shift from French to Vietnamese when the French were expelled from Vietnam.

One function of planning is to examine the forces that influence language usage in a society (eg, language maintenance and shift, or language attitudes), and to learn how to obtain benefits from these forces in order to meet planned objectives. In order to recognise and support the linguistic diversity of the nation and to ensure that the functions of linguistic variety in a policy are supported within the restrictions of available resources is another major function of status planning (see Jernudd 1986).

Kloss (1969) differentiated status planning from corpus planning. He claimed that corpus planning was primarily a linguistic process since it was concerned with the issues of coining new terms, reforming spelling or adopting a new script and formulating the rules of correct grammar. Cooper (1989) argued that pattern followed function in corpus planning. In other words the structures were selected so that a given form, overt or covert, could be served by a modification or treatment of the corpus and that the identification of the desired communicative functions preceded the selection of structures.  Thus, corpus planning, in order to be successful, must involve the achievement of a delicate balance between the old and the new, between traditionalism and rationality. Moreover, corpus planning required sensitivity to what the target population would “like, learn and use” (Fishman 1983, p. 115-117).

Basis for Planning and Education Agencies

The educational sector was involved in every case in which the development of an official language policy had taken place. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997,p. 8-9)  argued that:

Yet, it was suggested that the entire burden of planning language change should not be placed in the hands of the education ministry if it did not have, the scope, the resources or the authority to impose language usage beyond the educational settings.

Ditje (1994) argued that each community should be encouraged to take part in the development of language policy and in language planning. In fact, the success of language policy implementation should not only depend on the government or each educational institution, in particular, but every community should also be responsible for the effective implementation of language policy and language planning. Thus, it is clear that the participation of the local community in the development of language policy and the implementation of language maintenance is absolutely necessary.

The educational sector should make a number of language policy and planning decisions. Schools should be considered to be suitable settings for the development and implementation of language policy. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested five major language policy and planning decisions.

First, the education system should determine which language(s) would be taught within the curriculum, determine when the commencement of curriculum instruction would take place and what the duration of instruction would be, and determine what level and type of proficiency would be considered necessary to fulfil the needs of the society by the end of instruction (Corson, 1999).

Second, the recruitment of teachers must be defined. Who teaches the language(s) in the curriculum must be considered. Where and how to recruit proficient and qualified teachers must also be taken into consideration.

Third, it would be necessary to determine what segments of the student population should be exposed to language education and how to identify  each segment in order to provide it with readiness training, and to induce each segment to take the available instruction. In addition, parental and community support would be needed.

Fourth, assessment procedures would need to be defined. Assessment would need to measure students’ academic performance and teachers’ performance, as well as system performance in order that language performance meet societal needs (Keeves, 1997).

Finally, it would be necessary to determine how to introduce all of the activities both financially and physically, where to generate the resources from, and how to maintain language education across the whole system (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997).

Language in Education Planning

Language in education planning is basically different from language planning. Language planning is generally a function of government which must penetrate many sectors of society (Lo Bianco, 1987 b; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993). However, language in education planning affects only one sector of society, the educational sector (Corson, 1987; Cooper, 1989; Baldauf & Luke 1990). A number of countries over the past 20 or so years have considered language in educational planning but only the formal educational structure has been involved.

There is a clear reason why the educational sector is chosen as the area for language planning (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). The educational sector is concerned with the establishment of the standard language – whether the official national language or the official foreign language.  A standard language is associated with a set of discursive, cultural and historical practices. Individuals must acquire the standard language through individual participation in the usage of norms and these norms are commonly instilled in the educational sector.

The educational sector is selected as the area of language planning. It is thus, the transmitter and perpetuator of culture (Emmit and Pollock, 1997; Harris, 1990). But language planning is considered to involve only the so-called ‘standard language’.

A Model for Language in Education Planning

Figure 2.1, below, shows a summary of the various stages that might be used in the planning of language education as recommended by Kaplan and Baldauf (1997). The six typical stages are: the pre-planning stage, the survey stage, the report writing stage, the policy formation stage, the implementation stage, and the recurring evaluation stage which feeds back into the system at various points.

Language Policy and Planning

1 = PRE-planning stage: undertake historical research, and make cost estimated;

2 = SURVEY stage: design, test, disseminate and collect data;

3 = REPORT stage: write report, test recommendations;

4 = POLICY stage: design and test policy strategies;

5 = IMPLEMENTATION stage: devise implement strategies;

6 = EVALUATION stage: evaluate all phases and feedback into the system.

Language-in Education Policy

7 = EDUCATION Policy: separate from general policy

8 = CURRRICULUM Policy: identify what language, and when;

9 = PERSONNEL Policy: provide in-service/pre-service training;

10 = MATERIALS Policy: identify what, how much, how soon;

11 = COMMUNITY Policy: encourage positive parental attitudes, funding sources,

        Recruiting teachers/students

12 = EVALUATION Policy: evaluate curriculum and student success, teacher

        Success/consider interest, cost effectiveness, societal change, basic policy.

Language in education planning involves a series of subsidiary steps as can be seen in the bottom half of Figure 2.1. It is necessary for the plan to provide the basis from which the environment can be interpreted, and it is necessary for a broad recommendation to be advanced to provide the basis on which planning might take place. Both a policy formulation stage and an evaluation stage are required in language planning in education, as in more general language planning activities (Cooper, 1989; Ditje, 1994). Some of the policy formation and evaluation can take place as a part of general governmental planning processes if a language in education is being undertaken as a part of national activity (Teasdale, 2005).

Figure 1 The language planning feedback loop

Source: Kaplan and Baldauf (1997, p. 124)

Clampit (1995) suggested that it was necessary to find out what languages people in a particular community actually spoke, what were the purposes of the languages spoken, who were the speakers, where did the speakers live and what was the motivation to maintain some languages. This information would be best obtained through a sociolinguistics survey. Alwasilah (1997) indicated that planning may also have implications for attitude change in relation to instruction in schools if the languages were stigmatised. Nevertheless, if the languages were considered to have high prestige or economic advantage it might be necessary to change those impressions or views in order to prevent a heavy imbalance in a community who wanted to learn a language and to preclude anger on behalf of parents whose children were not selected (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1993).

Language in Education Policy

Scott (2000, p.25) argued that there were broadly three theories about how policy works. These were a centrally controlled model, a pluralist model, and a fragmented multi-directional model. The first two were shown to be flawed and the last, it was argued, incorporated more of the features of how policy worked in the educational arena.

The following figure shows three models of policy making that could be applied to the educational arena.

Policy is made

Model  A                                               

     Policy is implemented

Policy is made

Model  B                                                                                                                      

   Policy is contested and remade

Policy is implemented

Policy is made

Model C

    Policy is rewritten                                   Policy is contested and remade

Policy is made during its implementation

Figure 2 three models of policy making

Source: (Scott, 2000, p.24)

In the era of educational democratisation or decentralisation of education model B and in particular, Model C could be applicable to be implemented in respect to the policy making process in the educational arena. Those models seem to consider both bottom up and top down systems in policy making processes (Jalal & Musthafa, 2001).

Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that language planning generally had been referred to part of human resources development planning, and in turn had been associated with being involved in modernisation and community development. It was necessary for educational sectors to know what languages were desirable in the community and for what purpose the language would be used, for example, if a government wanted to develop its commercial ties with a particular country or region. The government would need to provide language education to produce individuals who had a good command and competence in the language of the new commercial partner (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993).

Through its national policy on language, the education sector in Australia has considered the introduction of language education for tourism and trading purposes with its trading partners in Asia, such as Indonesia, China, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan (Ingram 1993, Ditje, 1994). The languages of these trading partners have been taught at junior secondary, senior secondary and tertiary levels. The introduction of these languages for commercial purposes, in the short term, has been expected to produce speakers of these languages while in the longer term to produce a pool of speakers in the community to sustain the appreciation of a wider range of partners and their cultures (Lo Bianco, 1987a, 1987b, AACLAME, 1990)

Governments should provide a number of instrumental incentives to motivate young people to learn the languages on offer. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested that such encouragement might cover tax incentives to business organisations that hired specialists of those languages, since proficiency of language was required for maintaining foreign services. In order to improve instruction in those languages, allocation of funding would be absolutely necessary, including special salaries for the training of qualified teachers.

Language Policy in Schools

Language policy in schools refers to the resolution of language problems that school meet in settings of linguistic and cultural diversity (Corson, 1999; Coady & Laoire, 2002; Brun & Ramoniene, 2003). Many people consider the language policy of a school as an integral and necessary part of the administration and of curriculum practice (Ashworth, 1988). A language policy is a document compiled by the staff of a school, and is often assisted by school community, that guides the teaching and use of particular languages in the school (Djiteé, 1994; Khaparde, 2002).

Teachers and administrators are responsible for the design and implementation of the school language policy, through a policy making group or ideally through the participation of the whole school staff and the wider school community (Corson, 1990).

Language in Education Implementation

A number of issues need to be examined as part of any language in an education implementation program. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that once education policy had been determined, each area of policy development for the implementation of language policy might develop differently in a particular nation and depended on how that nation’s education system operated.

Curriculum Policy

The education sector has to turn its attention to a whole range of curricular issues once it has determined which languages are to be taught and also which are not to be taught (Corson, 1990; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997).

The space in the curriculum and the amount of time in the school day allocated to language instruction become primary issues (Ashworth, 1988; Harris, 1990). Since the school calendar is limited, the curriculum cannot be endlessly extended. In general it is at the expense of something that already exists when something is increased or added to the curriculum. Nagai (1997) indicated that a highly political question was frequently raised in order to make space for changes in language instruction, subject areas that needed to be reduced or eliminated if something were to be added or increased. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that some societies demanded that the national and local language should be represented significantly in the curriculum. Practical language subjects that enabled teacher education graduates to find jobs must also be incorporated into teacher education programs (Keeves & Magjoribanks, 1999, p. 114-139).

The other major issues in relation to the inclusion of language instruction in curriculum, is concerned with when to start language instruction, as well as the length of instruction and the intensity with which it is administered (Rodgers, 1989; Harris, 1990), However, the earlier the introduction of language education into the curriculum, the greater is the probability that the instruction is successful (Nagai, 1997). At the same time, the earlier the introduction of language instruction, the larger the space it needs in the curriculum over a greater length of time (Corson, 1988).

Harris (1990) argued that one aspect of the problem of the curriculum was to find more places in the curriculum in order to provide more effective teaching and to set a more realistic time frame for the point of onset and total duration of instruction, if the communicative activity was important for language learning. It would be necessary to design a communicative class with a greater time allocation (Nunan, 1988). Learners should be provided with greater opportunity for real communication in addition to the reduction of class size (Keeves, 1987; Nunan, 1988; Allwright & Bailey,1991).

With smaller classes, there is the possibility of creating greater communicative situations through group and pair work and through the use of the target language for most communication in the classroom (Nunan, 1988; Feez, 1998). Furthermore, the use of immersion programs, where one or more subjects other than the target language are taught in that language. Although this demands specialised teachers and teaching materials, it can expose the students to communicative language which they need to use in order to pass the subject.

Personnel Policy

In terms of planning issues, the teacher who provides the instruction needs to be considered. It is necessary for a group of teachers to be trained in language pedagogy as well as to make them reasonably fluent in a particular language or languages (Keeves and Magjoribanks, 1999). Furthermore, the personnel policy deals with three important problems: teacher source, teacher training and teacher reward (Power, 2000).

Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that it was true that the introduction of a new language into the curriculum might face the problem of a limited number of qualified teachers and there could be pressure to employ unskilled and teachers of very limited competence as a stop gap measure. In order to augment the pool of qualified teachers, short term and long term strategies needed to be developed.

Some teacher organisations do not wish to have unqualified teachers teaching in the schools. Even when foreign teachers are qualified, some local organisations are not pleased to see large numbers of teachers from overseas occupying teacher appointments, when there are many local teachers who are unemployed, even though the unemployed local teachers are not qualified to teach the target language (Ager, 1996).

Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) maintained that a possible strategy was to train local teachers to replace the imported teachers. Teacher training should be concerned with two issues: One dealing with achieving and maintaining competence in the target language (Ingram, 1993). The other referring to the incentives required to get teachers to place themselves in the pool of teachers available for appointment to teach the target language.

There may be two sorts of incentive; the first incentive is to provide or defray the costs of training, both in the language and in the general pedagogy, and long term incentives offered to provide satisfying careers for both language teachers and to encourage the maintenance of language proficiency (Djite, 1994; Ingram, 1993). Furthermore, the use of scholarships implies the development of some sort of screening mechanism to permit the selection of those most likely to succeed and most likely to commit themselves to a career in the field.

It is true that language teachers deserve status and they need to pursue career paths that do not lead only to teaching literature and language. Such teachers deserve to get greater rewards than they normally would, particularly when the teachers deal with a language that has considerable commercial value in the society (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990). They deserve a reward well beyond the normal limits of their colleagues because proficiency in a second or foreign language must be recognised as a valued ability.

It is necessary for an education system to provide and to subsidise pre-service training and adequate rewards, as well as high quality in the service training to encourage teachers to maintain their levels of proficiency (Power, 2000). The in-service educational opportunities for language teachers must cover visits to the spoken target language areas to maintain the teachers’ skills. Governments must provide a subsidy for their in-service training (Ingram, 1993). A major objective in language planning in education is identifying, training, and maintaining a cadre of skilled language teachers.

Material Policy

There must be some suitable content in language teaching; the language itself may be the objective of the instruction but instruction must be given around some content. According to Kaplan and Baldauf (1997), there are two related issues to be considered. The first issue is associated with the content used for language teaching. The second issue is concerned with the method used for the delivery of language instruction. Language learners need to be provided with as wide a base of registers as possible. Partial immersion models can be employed for second language teaching. With respect to the method of instruction for content delivery in an immersion setting, an interactive method needs to be applied for effective instruction. Cummins (1984, p .25) points out:

The experience of traditional second language teaching programs in countries such as Canada, Ireland and Wales demonstrates the disappointing results typically obtained when principles of interactive pedagogy are ignored. Most traditional second language teaching programs tend to be teacher centred and allow for little real interaction or active use of the target language by students in the classroom. They conform to a ‘transmission’ model of pedagogy rather than to an interactive model.

Reality of content has been debated widely in the field. Some teachers have argued that the language had to be accessible to learners through simplification. Other teachers had argued that authentic materials should be incorporated into language teaching (Nunan, 1998). Authenticity has to become the objective if it were to give the learner greatest access to the largest number of different registers. Simplified content might be less interesting although the simplified language might be more accessible.

From the tradition of language instruction, the method employed must be successful in relation to the stated objectives. A communicative approach may be an appropriate approach to produce competent speakers and listeners (Nunan, 1998). However, this approach does not apply equally well for success in learning both reading and writing. It is necessary to choose an approach from what is known about language learning and with respect to the objectives of the curriculum.

New methods have been frequently rejected by teachers without reference to their quality. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) have argued that there are several reasons why teachers feel uncomfortable with new methods. First, they may not understand the theoretical assumptions upon which a particular method is founded. Second, the ways in which the teachers are trained may contradict the assumptions. Third, the method may be different from the method of target language learning which they know from work experience. Language in education requires the selection of an appropriate instructional method.

Community Policy

Language education does not take place in a vacuum. Students and teachers are also members of a community beyond the schools (Nagai, 1997; Coady & Laoire, 2002). Parents are exposed to their children’s education. The wider community provides financial support for the education system. There are two important issues here. On the one hand, there are the attitudes of the community towards general language teaching, towards teachers of language as a group, towards the specific target language and towards the trade off that provides room for language instruction in the curriculum at the expense of some other disciplines. On the other hand, those attitudes have an effect on those people who manage the curriculum through the purse strings and through the potential supply of students and teachers. There is clear evidence that there are likely to be few language education candidates if the candidates themselves have their own negative attitudes. The development of a variety of approaches to influence the attitudes of the community should become an important aspect of language in education planning (Holmes, 1992; Baker & Jones, 1998). It may be necessary to modify attitudes in order to assure parents that language education is valuable to convince the students that language learning is not associated with effeminacy, to convince other academics that language teaching is an important activity, and to convince the whole population that bilingualism is not a threat to national unity.

Evaluation Policy

In order to justify the necessary expenditure, the proposed plan and its implementation should be evaluated. The question has been raised as to whether an educational plan directed at the whole population would show a greater chance of success. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested that it was not necessary that the whole population should have access to a particular language education program. Determination of the needs of society must be shown. It would not be efficient to train one million students to ensure the availability of 100,000 fluent speakers if the society projected that it would need 100,000 speakers of a particular language. A clear cut objective of language teaching in the schools would be to attain some level of bilingualism in the target language among the target population by the end of a period of study. There were certain unstated interrelated assumptions which were associated with the notion of educated bilingualism, namely: based on status (a) the two languages were equal in a bilingual environment and in addition they were equal in power and in attraction, and (b) bilingualism suggested near native proficiency in both languages in all registers (Kaplan, 1991). Both assumptions could be vacuous in the school environment. First, if the learners were beginners who came with their first language fully developed, the two languages could not be of equal status, power and attraction. Since the students could do everything linguistically in their first language and they could not do all those things in the second language, the first language would always have greater status, power and attraction (Harris, 1990). Second, near native competency could be met since the duration of instruction was limited in order to achieve such proficiency and since the syllabus of the school did not include all possible registers. Proficiency in any actual register would be unlikely since schooling normally ignored the pragmatic features of the second language.

It would require many years of exposure to achieve balanced bilingualism. An average level of bilingualism would be determined among bilinguals, and not among the whole student population (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Harris, 1990). Minimal bilingualism would be all that the school could hope for with a level of bilingualism that certainly did not incorporate an enormous register of the second language (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). As a matter of fact, however, minimal bilingualism involves only a certain awareness of the second language with little, if any, ability to use it in any register: Figure 2.3 shows mirror images on the assumption that the learner may enter the learning environment from either direction. What is labelled L2 is actually L1.

Figure 3 Degrees of bilingual competence

Source: Kaplan and Baldauf (1997,p. 137)

Furthermore, there is no evidence for the theory that any sort of bilingualism is a designed objective. School bilingualism may be the desired objective, and school bilingualism can be expected to lead to only a very limited proficiency within a small number of registers. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) indicated that a diglossic situation is always created by the outcome, with the first language always dominant, always offering the greatest range, and always marked by the greatest attraction. In other words, a student who had attained minimal bilingualism was always susceptible to retrogression in the direction of the first language.

The degree of attainable bilingual proficiency in the school environment must be identified. Many educational policy attempts had the serious problem that the expectations set were totally unrealistic (Thomas, 1981; Geneese, 1994). As a result, sometimes evaluations would show that the objectives had not been attained and the activity was not viewed as worthy of continuing support.

The ideal may be for a society to have as many bilinguals available as possible, simply on the basis that bilingualism is likely to provide children with many ways of looking at the world (Harris, 1990). A society that has a significant level of individual bilingualism is likely to have difficulty in continuing language education. Furthermore, proficiency is found to vary with the individual needs and the use to which the language is put from an examination of examples of bilingualism or multilingualism in naturally occurring situations.

In short, the number of bilinguals produced with respect to any particular language must be projected in terms of social needs, paying due regard to the level of bilingualism required (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Thus implies that the whole system needs constant evaluation, and it is necessary for the evaluation to have feedback through the system to adjust the language program in the right places so that it is more effective. Specifically, there needs to be evaluation of students to calculate whether they are attaining the objectives set by the system. Moreover, there is a need to evaluate the teachers to assess whether they have the language skills necessary to give quality instruction at the level demanded by the system. In addition, there needs to be a total evaluation of the system in order to calculate whether the objectives set are commensurate with the needs, abilities and population desires.

Evaluation of students implies that the objectives set by the system should have measurable outcomes (Feez, 1998). Existing instruments can be redeveloped to measure achievements that are compatible with the objectives of the system of instruction, and that the use of the evaluation instruments is itself feasible (Keeves, 1997; Mohandas, 1999).

Cooper (1989, p.157) redefined aspects of corpus and status planning. He suggested that language in educational planning was defined as the organised efforts to promote language learning and hence increase the number of speakers of a particular language. Thus, language planning was very relevant and applicable for the promotion of English and other national languages in addition to the maintenance of local languages (Baldauf & Luke, 1990; Coady & O’Laoire, 2002; Smolicz & Secombe, 2003).

Issues in Multilingualism and Education Policy

Multilingualism has become a common issue in many parts of the world including developed and developing countries. In this context, multilingualism is associated with local languages, national languages and international language (Baldauf and Luke, 1990).

On the one hand, the government and the local communities in all countries are challenged to manage multilingualism by introducing a language policy for multilingualism (Lo Bianco, 1987a). On the other hand, the education sector needs to provide significant resources for the development and promotion of multilingualism. The incorporation of multilingual teaching into the school curriculum needs to have positive implications for the development and promotion of local, national and global language education particularly in an era of globalisation and the expansion of democracy world wide (Nagai, 1997).

The promotion of multilingualism must cover linguistic diversity, such as vernacular language, national language and English as a global language. The following sections discusses the relevant issues.

A Vernacular Language

According to Walton and Eggington (1990, p. 54), a vernacular language means an indigenous local language that is used by people in a certain district or place. They further state that the term ‘vernacular language’ is used in a more political sense by UNESCO to mean a language dominated or oppressed by another and with the implication that vernacular languages are generally spoken by relatively small groups of people, who typically have little or no tradition of writing and the language is unlikely to be standardised. Holmes (1992, p.80-86) argues that the term ‘vernacular’ is used in a number of ways. It generally refers to a language which has not been standardised and which does not have official status.

There are more than 1,000 different vernacular languages spoken in the Pacific region. They make up around one-fifth of the world languages. They generally involve a very small number of speakers since the region’s population is small and scattered: the number of speakers per language account for approximately 5000-6000 with the largest number of speakers being found in Fiji with about 300,000 speakers, Samoa with about 250,000 speakers and Papua New Gunea with about 200.000 speakers (See Grimes, 1992; Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995). The smallest numbers of speakers, at the other end of the scale, make up about 170 languages, virtually all of them in Melanesia, and spoken by fewer than 200 speakers. Mugler and Lynch (1996, p. 2-5) reported that:

The majority of vernacular languages found in the Pacific region have related roots to each other. They belong to the members of Austronesian language family. According to history, 1000 years ago, the ancestors of vernacular language speakers migrated from west to east and settled in the islands of the Eastern Pacific regions. Linguistic changes subsequently occurred in each different area leading to the great linguistic diversity as can be seen today.

Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands both have a different language origin in terms of their vernacular languages family. In fact, they do not belong to an Austronesian family. Linguists suggest the ultimate origins of Papua New Guinea vernaculars are obscure. The Papua New Guinea ancestors were predicted to have been in the Pacific region for much longer – maybe 50,000 years or more (Grimes, 1992; Digest, 1999).

Before the European people came to the Pacific region, none of the vernacular languages were transcribed. European missionaries, using the letters of the Roman alphabet devised the writing system of the Pacific vernacular languages (Nagai, 1997). Many languages, particularly in Melanesia, are not yet written, although some Pacific vernacular languages have been written for more than 150 years.

In terms of minority languages, in the South-East Asian region for example, there are hundreds of languages that are indigenous to South-East Asian people that can be grouped into minority languages (Crystal, 2000). A large number of minority languages, more than 20, can be found in the remote areas of South-East Asian countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Philippines, West Malaysia and even Singapore.

Minority language speakers are motivated by religious and political factors. Anthropological linguists and Ministries of Culture recommend preserving and maintaining the identity of minority language (Crystal, 2000). However, the central government and the border controls perhaps want rapid assimilation into the main stream of national culture, economy, religion and politics. Mugler and Lynch (1996) argued that when it came to the policy making stage including educational policy, the two goals were necessarily in conflict. Consequently, It was really important to consider both top down policy and bottom up policy making in order to manage the conflict of interest that arose.

The South East-Asian governments have much in common in their attitudes toward minority groups. They agree that the territories of minority language speakers need to be protected. The minority groups need to be allowed to assimilate, migrate, disappear, or stay intact where they are, but the tendency for separatism needs to be prevented from developing (Walton and Eggington 1990). Even though they may be isolated from national educational planning, the language they speak needs to be considered.

The strengthening of regional and national pride may lead to further research on minority languages. A strong national language is an important issue, in what Gonzales (1979 in Noss, 1984) calls ‘language welfare’. Then a language firmly rooted in natural or regional antiquity is considered to be even more important.

 

A National Language

Indigenous languages which are given official priority in particular countries by the government concerned can be defined as national languages (Nos, 1984; Grimes, 1992; Digest 1999). For example, in South East Asian countries the national languages are Bahasa Indonesia in Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia, and Thai in Thailand. Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia, Malay and the Tagalog language of Philippines belong to the same family.

In terms of national languages, two categories need to be considered. One is the nature of the national language which refers to what the national language is supposed to be (Nos, 1984). The other is the role of the national language which is associated with what the national language is supposed to do. In ASEAN countries, every country is in a different situation regarding the nature and the role of its national language.

A Global Language and Its Impact

Crystal (1997) argued that a language can be defined as a global language when it is recognised in many countries around the globe. In addition, it gains a genuinely global status and plays a key role. Crystal (1997, p.2) obviously agrees that:

English is a global language because it is spoken as a first language, a second language or third language by people around the world. He further explains that in order to gain a global status, two things should be considered. First, the language must be recognised as an official language and it is widely used. Second, although the language does not have any official status, it is widely and popularly taught as a foreign subject.

English meets these criteria as it currently is widely spoken around the world and popularly taught in the largest number of schools, including the schools of the non-English speaking countries (Pennycook, 1994; Crystal, 1997).

What makes a global language? According to the history of English, there is a close link between the dominance of language and power. No language can be recognised as a global means of communication without a strong political, military or economic power base (Pennycook 1994; Crystal 1997).

However, becoming a global language has nothing to do with the number of language speakers. It is associated more with who speaks the language (Cook, 1994; Crystal, 1997). For example, Latin used to be an international language. This had nothing to do with the number of Latin speakers. It had a link with the power of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Chinese has the biggest number of speakers in the world but it is not considered to be a global language like English.

An international language can result from a militarily powerful nation. Moreover, a militarily powerful nation can contribute to the maintenance and expansion of an international language. The development of international business and information technology, for instance, requires the use of a global language (Lo Bianco, 1987b; Ingram, 1993; Crystal 1997). English is currently playing a key role in this area which is supported by the wide use of English as the first and foreign language in many developed countries such as United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and Hongkong.

The use of English around the globe is appreciated by millions of people. To communicate over the Internet with people in Australia, Germany and Singapore, for instance, needs a single lingua franca or a common language (Grabe, 1988; Crystal 1997; Graddol 1997; Bruthiaux, 2002). Furthermore, it is more complicated to use a three-way electronic translation in international business meetings involving three nations than the use of a single global language.

Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) suggests that language policy, including the promotion of English, must be inspired by an equitable vision of how all languages can be permitted to flourish. If English is to be a force for democracy and human rights, much needs to change, in Northern countries as much as in the South, and in Northern-South relations. Language policy needs to and can play an important role in such a transition.

Linguistic power The existence of a global language may result in a linguistic power. Currently people who have English as their first language, second language or those who have a good common grounding of English are assumed to have power and access to develop their career in the international arena (Pennycook1997; Bruthiaux, 2002). On the other hand, those who do not have English might have some problems, for example, scientists who do not have a good command of English do not get access to international publications in journals. Business people cannot run international trade if they are not able to communicate in English.

 

Linguistic Death   According to history, thousands of languages have died since humans were first able to speak. A dominant language may contribute to the language loss if a particular ethnic group adopts a dominant language and ignores its own language (Day, 1980; 1985; Pennycook, 1994; Nagai, 1997). Crystal (1997, p.17) states that:

A lot of indigenous languages in North America, Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa have been lost. Other estimates are that within the next century around 80 % of the world’s 6,000 or so living languages will disappear.

When languages disappear, there will be an intellectual and social tragedy. Many languages have not yet been written down, or have only recently been written down (Crystal, 2000; Skutnab-Kangas 2000). Language is a medium of serving the history of people. A language can never be recaptured when it is lost. It is similar to the loss of an endangered species and environment degradation.

Crystal (2000) reported that the early history of English contact with minority language speakers in North America, Australia and in the Celtic parts of the British Isles was indeed one of conquest and assimilation. But currently, the existence of English as a global language has a positive effect which supports the local languages.

Language Shift and Maintenance

According to Clampitt (1995), language maintenance and shift are terms that refer to a choice made by a society as to which language is used for certain functions. This choice may lead to the death of a minor language in its totality, leaving no speakers of the minor language or the language may die in a specific community if the shift to the new language does not occur. If language shift occurs only in certain sections of society then some degree of language maintenance of the minor language takes place (Paulston, 1994; Campit, 1995).

There are several conditions that could contribute to the promotion of language shift. These conditions are associated with societal bilingualism, migration, industrialization, the schools’ and government’s use of the language, urbanisation, different ethnic intermarriage, and the prestige levels of the new language and minor language (Paulston, 1994).

Factors Contributing to Language Shift

Why would a community shift its language from one to another? The most obvious reason would be associated with the importance of learning the second or new language. Getting a job could have become the economic reason for people to learn the second language (Lo Bianco, 1987a; Ingram, 1993).

The second important reason could be that the community was not concerned with the importance of maintaining their ethnic language. Holmes (1992: p. 65) suggested that:

The speakers probably see no advantages of maintaining their language and in addition to the lack of knowledge on the detrimental impact of language shift to the ethnic language situation. Language shift can not be avoided without an active language maintenance program. Furthermore, since a language shift was not perceived as a threat and the speakers abandoned it, language loss might occur.

Demographic factors also contribute to the language shift. Based on several studies, language shift tends to take place in urban areas whereas rural areas seem to be more resistant to language shift (Crystal, 2000; Nagai, 1997). Because of longer isolation from the centres of political power they can fulfil most of their social needs in the ethnic or minority language, so the rural community has resistance to language shift.

In terms of language attitudes, the minority language tends be more highly valued in the areas where language shifts tend to be slower. When the local people see their language as an important symbol of ethnic identity and culture, they generally maintain it longer (Nagai, 1997). The active use of a minority language is associated with the positive attitude and support of the community toward the ethnic language. Such attitudes may help people to resist the pressure from the predominant group to switch to their language (Crystal, 2000).

Language shift can be accelerated by the incidence of intermarriage between couples of different ethnic backgrounds. The children of the intermarried family tend to use the predominant language if multilingualism is not normal in the community. Holmes, j. (1992) gives an example. He stated that German immigrants to South Australia were typical. They were slow to shift to English, and maintained their German language for many generations. Meanwhile, Paulston (1994, p. 12-13) argued that:

A shift to a dominant language is encouraged if opportunity of access to the dominant language and the socioeconomic incentives are present. The mechanism of language shift is bilingualism, often but not necessarily parents use the original language with grandparents and the new language with their children.

Intermarriage or exogamy could lead to the typical language shift for one partner, at least, within the family. The socio-economically favoured group could influence the direction of language shift.

Language Policies and Education for Indigenous People

Indigenous refers to aboriginal peoples who live in modern nation states across the globe (Corson, 1997, p.77). Race or cultural differences distinguish them from the dominant populations of their countries. Indigenous languages in several cases undergo assimilatory pressure from the dominant languages. Many indigenous languages have become endangered, moribund or event extinct (See Crystal, 2000). Recently, governments in some countries introduced official language policies to maintain and promote the development and use of indigenous languages in their countries.

Historical Notes

According to history, the contact between colonizers in many parts of the world and indigenous peoples led to pressure on the aboriginal peoples to follow the mainstream of imposed cultures. Nagai (1997) reported that alien language and cultures were institutionalized for the indigenous peoples and a schooling system was based on the alien languages and cultures. Furthermore, the alien language and culture became the indigenous peoples only route to education (Corson, 1997). In the 1970s, policy makers thought that the indigenous peoples would benefit from learning and using the colonizers’ languages which provided access to the cultural and economic goods of the dominant cultures.

One of the crucial language planning decisions that a country can make is the determination of a language to serve as the medium of instruction in schools (Fasold 1984; Keeves, 1987; Corson, 1997). Corson (1997) gave examples from Tanzania and Ireland where the determination of the language of education was to some extent part of the determination of the national language, but in both countries compromises had to be made. In Ireland, Irish could not be used as a medium of instruction in schools because too few people could speak it. In Tanzania, Swahili was judged to be widespread enough to be made the nationwide language of primary education.

The concept of education in a familiar language began to spread in PNG especially in rural areas. The use of vernacular language at an early stage of schooling was considered to be effective to assist children to relate better to their own environment, appreciate their own cultural values, and make them more psychologically secure (Somare, 1974; Vallen, 1987; Nagai 1997). 

In the early development of bilingualism the advantages of bilingual education was not widely promoted and often the evidence was covered up in the face of competing ideologies (Cummins 1984 cited in Corson, 1997). In 1951, a UNESCO committee of experts argued that it was now axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child was the child’s mother tongue (UNESCO 1953, p.11). The committee further claimed that their case was based on psychological, sociological and educational grounds.

Significant Contributions

A revision in policy priorities for vernacular languages of all kinds, along with changes in attitudes to bilingual education and bilingualism, was supported by many studies in several countries (Skutnabb-Kangas 1984; Cummins & Swain 1986; Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins 1988; Corson 1993). The policy makers gradually became more receptive to the lasting demands of indigenous people for the maintenance of their language in those countries where social justice becomes a political priority. Consequently, in those countries bilingual and bicultural forms of education were appropriate.

Where the local people became more involved in the schooling process, and where their ethnic language was valued and used as a medium of instruction in their schools, the whole program of schooling was directed towards elevating the status of the community and questioning the role of formal education in that process. Language questions became subsumed under much more important issues (see Corson, 1998; Harris, 1990).

The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention Number 169 on indigenous people gave support to the policies of bilingual and bicultural education in 1990. Articles 27 and 28 of ILO were concerned with the rights of these people and sought to establish their own educational institutions and facilities. It was argued that children belonging to the peoples concerned should, wherever practicable, be taught reading and writing in their own mother tongue and their ethnic language, namely, or the language commonly used by the group to which they belonged (ILO 1990, p. 16).

The worst and most shameful policies of the past were recently repeated in some countries. The Kurdish peoples experienced various forms of linguistic oppression in the several countries that they inhibited as home lands. In the twentieth century, Sadam Husesin’s Regime in Iraq attempted to eliminate the Kurds as people, even though they spoke an Iraqi official language. In addition, legislation in Turkey forbad the public use of the Kurdish languages and punished their use in education (Mc Dowall 1994; Skutnab-Kangas & Bucak 1995; Havrest, 1997). Even though more than 80 per cent of the indigenous people spoke their traditional languages and many spoke nothing else in the Chiapas region of Mayan, the people received insufficient official support for their languages in education.

Indigenous languages have sometimes received supportive treatment in the development of educational policies elsewhere in South and Central America (Corson, 1993). For example, in Peruvian Andes, some Quechua speaking people had access to bilingual education in Quechua and Spanish. Quechua children who received a bilingual education compared favourably on the educational outcomes with other Quechua children who received a monolingual education in Spanish (Hornberger 1988a, 1988b).

Problems and Difficulties

Norway is a country that has a largely homogenous language and culture whereas Australia and Canada are two countries that have had great heterogeneity on the language and culture of their indigenous peoples (Corson, 1997). In the two heterogenous countries, there have been marked constraints imposed in the development of language policy. In Australia, English alone has dominated education, while in Canada, both English and French have dominated but in separate regions of the country.

The most comprehensive and the most effective language policies are Norway’s language policies, developed at the national level for the Sámi peoples. The legislation enacted in 1992 gave language rights and culture to the Sámi (Magga, 1995). The Norwegian Parliament acted to strengthen official use of three Sámi languages and to declare the Sámi language and Norwegian as equal languages with equal status. A Sámi Language Council was formed. The council supported the work of the Sámi Education Council which had a very important role in Sámi language education.

Through the Sámi Language Act, children obtained access to instruction in Sámi, in all subjects, parent or student choice in deciding whether a student received instruction through Sámi, and the possibility existed for Sámi children to be taught in their mother tongue for nine compulsory years of education (Corson, 1995; Corson, 1997). Meanwhile, outside the Sámi area instruction in Sámi was guaranteed for pupils with a Sámi background. Any children, regardless of background, had the right to be taught in Sámi. A great range of bilingual education provisions were offered by Norwegian schools. The schools have successfully produced graduates who were fully bilingual in both their national language and their aboriginal language

New Zealand is a country without an official national policy for its Maori people and their language. New Zealand language policies in education have developed along with educational policy changes in general. Many bilingual Maori and English elementary schools and monolingual Maori schools were developed through the changes of language policy in education (Corson, 1997; Durie, 2004). Maori and community and tribal groups were quick to take advantage of these changes. The indigenous people themselves were heavily involved in the development of Maori language policies in education.

There were three developments in New Zealand education that could be considered to be significant for Maori language policy (Corson, 1993). The first was ‘Kohanga Reo’ or ‘language nests’. It involved the non-governmental sponsorship of the pre-school movement. The Kohanga had little equipment and had no structured curriculum but there was a lot of singing and movement. The Kohanga program aimed at creating a Maori home. Many adults or parents took part in the activities, interacting with the children and providing language and culture models. In 1980s, many children sent on to state elementary schools had become bilingual and bicultural. In fact, the children inevitably acquired English that was the dominant culture outside the Kohanga, where there was unchallenged culture dominance (Corson, 1993; Durie, 2004).

The second was the establishing of multilingual ethnic schools which incorporated the values of the various minority cultures into the dominant educational values. Some of them had Kohanga Reo conducted in the school yards (May, 1994). The Maori Language was used as the mode of instruction in these elementary schools for children from Maori backgrounds who wanted bilingual education in Maori and English.

The third significant development program was the Maori Philosophy Elementary Schools or Kura Kupapa Maori. National reform in educational policy encouraged small groups of local people to establish their own state funded schools. The Kura Kupapa responds to a passionately felt belief among many Maoris that the European style school system which had become their sole avenue to formal education was not appropriate organisationally or pedagogically for the sustenance and development of Maori culture (Corson, 1993). The Maori home had a close link to the classroom environment. Maori language and culture became central in these homes and schools. At the same time the schools dealt with a modern up to-date and relevant curriculum following the introduction of guidelines by the State. The school was expected to produce fully bilingual and bi-cultural students (Hingangaroa, 1995).

Indigenous language education applies only to the indigenous language used inside the Arctic Circle where Innukituit is used, but only in the elementary grades whereas English is gradually introduced in later years (Kirkness & Brown, 1992). Canada provides important models for designing and implementing programs using Aboriginal languages as the medium of instruction (Corson & Lemay 1996). The models and their programs are exemplary, rather isolated and spread across the country. There is little coordination at the local and national level. The efforts of local Aboriginal people are needed. An Aboriginal language policy study called for the policy makers to ensure the survival and revitalisation of Aboriginal languages across Canada (Assembly of First Nations, 1988).

Australia’s Language Policies in education needed to address many different Aboriginal languages and great distances which had to be faced with the implementation of educational reform (AACLAME, 1990; Lo Bianco, 1987b). A single national Coordinating Body was established to order overseas developments. In Australia language policy was recognised more formally than in many other countries, with the implicit guarantee of language rights for a community’s Aboriginal people.

A great deal of preliminary work for this development was carried out by the National Aboriginal Language Program (NALP) that raised expectations of more lasting reforms through providing financial support for the preservation and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages (Djite,1994). More than 90 Aboriginal languages benefited from this program, either directly or indirectly, during the first four years. The programs also contributed to the incidence of consciousness among teachers toward the problems of Aboriginal first language speakers and Aboriginal languages were more easily recognised in public and Aboriginal students’ retention rates  were markedly improved (AACLAME, 1990).

The funding support for NALP is currently managed by the Aboriginal Education Assistance Act. The production and development of the languages within their home territory is easily promoted or guaranteed since there is no Commonwealth legislation giving some form of official language status to Aboriginal and Torres Islander languages. The school policy is rather peace meal and varies greatly from one area to another. Walsh (1991, p. 47-48) argued that bilingual education was one possible solution to the decline of traditional languages. The Kriol/English program at Barunga School has been considered to be notably successful (Harris, 1991). The Aboriginal first language schools now exist mainly in parts of Northern Territory. The languages are used exclusively in the primary grades with a progressive transition to English as the goal (Romaine, 1991; Fesl, 1988).

Summary

In summary, language policy and language planning are often used interchangeably and sometimes overlap. ‘Language policy’ can be defined as the combination of official decisions and public practice which are related to language education and use. ‘Language planning’ has resulted from language policy.

Official language policy is implemented in the educational sector. The educational sector makes a number of language policy and planning decisions since the role of language in educational planning involves only the educational sector. Thus, only the formal educational structure is basically involved in language education planning. Language in education planning includes six typical stages, such as preplanning stage, survey stage, report stage, policy stage, implementation stage and evaluation stage. However, the role of language in education also includes educational policy, curriculum policy, personnel policy, material policy, community policy and evaluation policy.

In many developing countries, a multilingualism language policy that involves local languages, the national language and the global language are recognised. English is now considered the most popular and dominant global language in many parts of the world.

The issues of strengthening and balancing local, national and global language policy need to be taken into consideration in line with the Delors report on the local and global tensions. From this review it can be argued that the problem of language shift which seems to cause language loss in many parts of the world can be solved through strengthening and balancing local, national and global language through formal education.

Finally, it is important to consider the introduction of language policies particularly for multilingualism which can bring about the promotion of a global language as well as the maintenance and development of the local and national languages in the formal education sector.