Home-language based bilingual education: language typology of … · 2016. 10. 24. · 6 PRAESA –...

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

Home-language based bilingual education:

Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary

schools in South Africa

Peter Plüddemann

PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 32

This paper proposes a new language-medium typology for primary schools in South Africa. By making learners’

home languages central, the typology goes beyond the

time-honoured but limiting terms of single-medium,

dual-medium and parallel-medium schooling. The

typology has been adapted to schools’ growing linguistic

complexity, and is aligned with the language-in-

education policy of additive bi/multilingualism and its provincial counterparts in the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape. Illustrative

examples are based on the 2009 revision of the National

Curriculum Statement. Ultimately, the typology aims to assist schools to realise a home-language

based bilingual policy, and to help the officials that support them to identify

appropriate interventions by way of teacher development and deployment, materials

provision, and advocacy and on-site support

Acknowledgments

– totheFordFoundationforfinancialsupport

– toallwhohaveengagedwithandcommentedontheproposedtypology

– toNevilleAlexander,forhisencouragmentandcriticallysupportivestancethroughout

– toNcedoJabeandXolisaguzulafortranslatinga‘veryacademic’abstractintoisiXhosa!

ThisisarevisedandexpandedversionofapaperpresentedanddiscussedindetailatameetinginCapeTowninJuly2009.Thosewhoparticipatedinthesymposiumonalanguage-mediumtypologyforschools,hostedbyPRAESA,includedrepresentativesfromthenationalDepartmentofEducation,theWesternCapeEducationDepartment,aswellasresearchers.Theexceptionallyfruitful

discussionatwhatwasineffectaminipolicydialoguehasinformedthispaper,andhasinfluencedthedecisiontoreplacethetermmothertonguewithhomelanguage.Asubsequentversionwaspresentedatthe3RsConsortium’snationalpolicydialogueforuminKemptonParkinDecember2009.

PublishedbyPRAESA(ProjectfortheStudyofAlternative

EducationinSouthAfrica)

UniversityofCapeTown

PrivateBagRondebosch7701

CapeTown,SouthAfrica

Tel:0216504013/Fax:0216503027

Email:[email protected]

Website:http://www.praesa.org

ISBN:1-919948-40-3

Copyright:©2010theauthorandPRAESA

SeriesEditor:PeterPlüddemann

DTPconversion:AndyThesen

Printing:Digi4print

PRAESA’sseriesofoccasionalpapersismeanttoprovideanopportunityfortheresearchdonebystaffmembersandassociatedresearchersworkinginthedomainsoflanguage,education,andlanguagepolicyineducationto

obtaininitialexposuretoaninterestedpeeraudience.Allviewsexpressedarethoseoftheauthor,anddonotneces-sarilyreflectthoseofPRAESA.Itishopedthatfeedbackwillimprovethefinalversioninwhichthisresearchiseventuallypublishedordistributed.

Formoreinformationontheseriesseewww.praesa.org

PeterPlüddemannworksatPRAESA.Hisprofessionalinterestsinclude

realisinghome-languagebasedbilingualeducation,developinglanguage

teachers,promotingwritinginschools,researchingteacherliteracies,and

mappinglanguagesurveys.E-mail:[email protected]

Home-language based bilingual education:

Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary

schools in South Africa

Peter Plüddemann

PRAESA Occasional Papers No. 32

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 322 3Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

Abbreviations and acronyms

ABLE AdditiveBi-LingualEducation(project)ACE AdvancedCertificateinEducationECDoE EasternCapeDepartmentofEducationEMIS EducationManagementandInformationSystemEx-DET formerDepartmentofEducationandTraining(schools)FAL firstadditionallanguageFP foundationphaseGIS geographicinformationsystemsHL homelanguageHLb home-languagebasedHLbBE home-languagebasedbilingualeducationIP intermediatephaseLiEP language-in-educationpolicyWCED WesternCapeEducationDepartmentLoLT languageoflearningandteachingLTP LanguageTransformationPlanMoI mediumofinstructionMT mothertongueMTE mother-tongueeducationMTbBE mother-tonguebasedbilingualeducationnonHLb nonhome-languagebasedtypeM maintenance(model)typeT transitional(model)

Contents

Abstract – Opsomming – Isishwankathelo 4

Part One: Contexts and Issues 61. The home language, bi-/multilingualism and education 62. Hegemony and the anglocentric linguistic market 83. Bilingual education in South Africa: the two traditions 94. Policy support for (additive-/mother-tongue-based/HLb) bilingual education 115. Clarifying MTbBE 13 5.1 South African uses 13 5.2 International uses 15

Part Two: Towards a Learner-centred Typology 176. Limitationsofcurrentofficialdefinitionsandtypologies 177. Towardsalearner-centredtypology 188. Proposed terms 199. Non-home-Language based models 20

Part Three: HLbbE Models 2310. Overview of home-language based models 23 10.1 HLbBE:adefinition 23 10.2 designing a model: factors to consider 23 10.3 The curriculum connection 2511. Single_HLb 2512. Bi-LoLT models: late-transit & dual-medium 25 12.1 Abrupt/50:50 bi-LoLT models 28 12.2 Gradual bi-LoLT models 3813. Parallel-stream_HLb models 38 13.1 Maintenance (Type M) models 46 13.2 Transitional (Type T) models 49

Part Four: A bouquet of Challenges 5214. Challenges for information gathering and management 52 14.1 determining incoming learners’ language repertoire 52 14.2 Agreement on LoLT 5315. Challenges for provisioning and support 54 15.1 Translations: curriculum documentation and textbooks 54 15.2 Advocacy and incentives 5516.Fromclassificationtopolicyrealisation 5517.Inconclusion 56

References 58Glossary 61Other publications in the Occasional Paper series 66

Note for this Occasional PaperNormallythepapersareprintedinA5format,butbecauseoftheimportanceofthetablestothecontentofthispaperitwasdecidedthattheformatwouldchangetoA4thistime.–The editor

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 32� 5Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

AbstractThisdiscussiondocumentproposesanewlanguagetypologyofprimaryschoolsundertherubricofhome-languagebasedbilingualeducationthatgoesbeyondthetime-honouredbutlimitingtermsofsingle-medium,dual-mediumandparallel-mediumeducation.Itdoesso,firstly,bycombiningthedescriptionofschoolsinlanguage-medium(LoLT)termswithalearner-centredfocusonhomelanguage(HL)inordertogaugetheoverlapbetweenHLandLoLT.Suchagaugeisanecessarypointofdepartureforsystematicinterventionifthelanguage-in-educationpolicyofadditivebi-/multilingualismistoberealised.Secondly,theproposedtypologydrawsattentiontothelimitationsofthemonolingualhabitusinthecollectionandclassificationoflanguage-relateddatafromtheschools.Itisarguedthatdepartmentaldatabasesshould,whereapplicable,recogniseuptotwohomelanguagesperlearner,andshouldalsoacknowledgethatlearnersindual-mediumclassesareexposedtotwoLoLTs.Thirdly,theproposalisforanewtypologyofschoolsinwhichthefourmaincategories(single-medium,dual-medium,transitional,parallel-stream)differfromeachotherwithregardtothedegreeofoverlapbetweenlearnerHLandLoLT.Examplesareprovidedofnon-home-languagebasedmodelsbyusingexistinginformationaboutschools.However,theemphasisisonthedescriptionandillustra-tionofhome-languagebasedmodels,usingthenewsubjectdivisionandtimeallocationrecommendedbythe2009NCSReviewreport.

Aconcludingsectionidentifiestheisuesthathavetobeaddressedtoimprovethetypology.Theproposedclassificationsystemaimstoassistschoolstodeveloparelevantformofhome-languagebasedbilingualeduca-tion,andtoguideeducationstakeholderstosupportingtheschoolsinregardtoteacherdevelopmentanddeployment,provisionoflearningmaterialsanddocumentationinrelevantlanguages,andon-sitesupport.

OpsommingDietaaltipologievirskolewathiervoorgestelwordonderdiehoofopskrifhuistaal-gebaseerdetweetaligeonderwysgaanverderasdietradisioneletaalmedium-klassifikasie,opdievolgendewyse.Eerstenskombineerditdiebeskrywingvanskoleintermevantaalvanleerenonderrig(TLO)met’nleerder-gesentreerdefokusophuistaal(HT)omsodoendedieoorvleuelingvandieHT-TLOtebepaal.So’nbepalingis‘nnodigevertrek-puntvirstelselmatigeingrypingindiendietalebeleidvirskolesedoelvantoevoegendetwee-ofmeertaligheidgerealiseergaanword.Tweedensworddieaandaggevestigopdietekortkomingevandieenkeltaal-habitusindieversamelingenklassifikasievantaaldata.Daarwordgeargumenteerdatdepartementeledatabasisse,waartoepaslik,tottweehuistaleperleerderbehoorttoetelaat,enookmoeterkendatleerdersindiegevalvandubbelmediumonderrigaantweeTLOeindieselfdegraadblootgestelword.Derdensworddaar’nvoorstelgemaakvir’nnuwetaaltipologievirskolewaarinelkvandievierhoofkategorieë(enkelmedium,oorgangsme-dium,dubbelmediumenparallele-baan)vanmekaarverskiltenopsigtevandiegraadvanooreenkomstussendieleerdersseHTendieTLO.Diedokumentverskafvoorbeeldevannie-huistaal-gebaseerdemodelledeurgebruiktemaakvanbestaandeinligtingoordieskole.Dieklemvalegteropdiebeskrywingenillustrasievanhuistaal-gebaseerdemodelle,waaringebruikgemaakwordvandievakindelingentydsroosterwatdeurdie2009hersieningvandieNKVvoorgestelis.

’nSlotgedeelteidentifiseerdiekwessieswataangespreekmoetwordterverbeteringvandievoorgesteldeklassifikasiestelsel.Dietipologiestelhomtendoelomskoletehelpom’nrelevantevormvanhuistaal-gebas-eerdetweetaligeonderwysterealiseer,enomdiebeamptesenanderrolspelerswataangesêisomdieskoleteondersteun,tehelpomsáámtoepaslikeintervensiesmetbetrekkingtotonderwyseropleidingen-ontplooiing,dieverskaffingvanleermateriaal,sowelasplaaslikeondersteuningtebeplan.

IsishwankatheloOluxwebhulwengxoxolumemelelauhloboolutshalokusetyenziswakolwimikwimfundoyamabangaaphantsi,phantsikommiselowemfundoengeelwimiezimbiniesekelwekulwimilwasekhaya.Lommiselougqithelangaphayakwexeshaelinemidaelinikezwayimfundoengulwimi-nye,imfundoengeelwimiezimbinikunyenemfundoengeelwimizenkobekumagumbianxuseneyokwisikoloesinye.Iyakwenzaoku,okokuqala,ngokuthiidibaniseinkcazelongeelwimiezisetyenziselwaukufundisa(LoLT)ezigxininisaukusetyenziswenikolwimilwasekhayaoluyakuthilukhuthazeukuzibandakanyakwabafundikwimfundo.Lentoisincedaukuqwalaselaunxulumanophakathikolwimilwasekhayanolwimilokufundisaesikolweni.Olunxulumanisosisiqaloson-geneleloolululoukubaumgaqonkqubowezolwimikwimfundoengeelwimiezimbininangaphezuluungathiuphunyezwe.Okwesibini,oluhlobolutsalelaumdlakwizithinteloezibangelwangumkhwakalwimi-nyeekuqokelelweni,nasekuchazwenikolwaziolunxulumeneneelwimikwizikolo.Kukhoingxoxoethikufuneka

ingqokelelayolwaziyesebe,aphokunakhokhona,yamkeleukuyakutshokwiilwimiezimbinizasekhayakum-fundingamnye,kwayeyamkelweintoyokubaabafundikumagumbiafundisangeelwimiezimbinibabhencelweiilwimiezimbiniukufundanokufundisa.Okwesithathu,esisicelosesohloboolutshalwezikoloaphoizintluezineezingundoqo(ulwimi-nye,ulwimi-mbini,ukutshintshela,amacandeloanxuseneyo)zahlukeneneyoxaku-jongweiqondolokuyelelelanaphakathikolwimilwasekhayalomntwanakunyenolwimilokufundisaesikolweni.Imizekeloinikeziweyezintluezingasekelelwangakulwimilwasekhayangokuthikusetyenzisweulwazioluselelukhonamalunganezikolo.Nangonakunjalo,ugxininisolukwinkcazelonezalathisingeentlobozemfundoezingama-26ezisekelwekwimfundoengeelwimizasekhaya,kusetyenziswauhloboolutshalokwahlulaizifundonokwabiwakwexeshaoluphakanyiswakwingxeloyophononongolweNCSka2009.

Icandelolokugqibelalivelisaimibaekufunekainikweingqwalaselaukuphuculaoluhlobo.Oluhloboluphakanyiswayolokucalulalujoliseekuncedeniizikoloekubeniziveliseindlelaeyiyoyemfundoengeelwimiezimbiniesekelwekulwimilwasekhaya,kwayeinikenomkhomba-ndlelakwiziphandamandlaekuxhaseniizikolomalunganophuhlisolootitshalanasekubatyaleniezikolweni,unikezelolwezixhobozokufundanokufun-disangeelwimiezifanelekileyo,kunyenoncedoolufumanakangqoesikolweni.


Part One: Contexts and Issues

1. The home language, bi-/multilingualism and educationUnderlyingthediscussiontofollowisadefinitionofthehomelanguageormothertongueas‘achild’sprincipallanguage(oroneofhis/herprincipallanguages)atthetimeofhis/herfirstcontactwiththeofficialeducationsystem,i.e.,attheageoffourorfive’�.Whileitisofcoursepossibletoquestionthenotionofthemothertongueorprincipallanguage,orofthenativespeaker,assomeresearchershavedone,achild-orlearner-centredschoolingsystemcannotgetawayfromseekingtoestablishtheyoungchild’sbest-knownlanguage(s),theone(ormore)sheorhefeelsmostcomfortablein,andthatismostlikelytoenablesuccessfulliteracydevelopmentandlearningatschool.Itislikelythatinmostcontexts,certainlyinmostAfricancontexts,thechild’shomelanguagewillbeoneormorelocalorregionaldialect,sociolectornon-standardvariety,atsomeremovefromthespokenprestigevarietyorthewrittenstandard.Insuchcontexts,amother-tongueorhome-languagebasedschoolingsystemhasthetaskofusingthechild’sprincipallanguagetomediateaccesstothestandardvarietyandofaddingthelattertothechild’srepertoire.ThisiswhathappensasamatterofcourseinmosteducationsystemsinthepoliticalNorth,certainlyforlanguagemajoritychildren.Whileitismuchmoredifficulttodosoinmultilingualpost-co-lonialcontextsinwhichtheformercoloniallanguagehasamassivehead-startovernationalorlocallan-guagesintermsoflegitimacy,stakeinthelinguisticmarket,andcultivation,inessencethetaskremainsthesame.Atthispointitmaybeusefultodistinguishbetweenmultilingualismandmultilinguality.

…‘multilingualism’mayneedtobedistinguishedfrom‘multilinguality’.Itseemstome…thattheformin-itysimplyreferstothefactthat‘thelanguagesareoutthere’;butthe-ismconnotessomeelementofpolicy:‘Themanylanguagesaretherebecausewewantthemtobe,andwefeelwemust

� AscitedinAlexander2006:4,thisdefinitionhasbeenadoptedbytheCouncilofEurope,whointurnhavetakenitfromtheworkofAyoBamgbose.

haveapolicytocopewiththem.’Iamconsciousinhavingnowcometoacountrywithelevenofficiallanguages,butwithatleast24whicharesomebody’smothertongue.So,atthenationallevel,SouthAfrica’smultilingualityistwiceasvariedasitsmultilingualism.(Ostler2007:30)

Multilingualismisthusapolicyorientationto-wardstheformalrecognitionofmultiplelanguagesandthesystemicpromotionoflanguagelearning,whilemultilingualityistherepertoireoflanguagesorvarietiesalreadyknownbyusersindividu-allyorcollectively.Theadjective‘multilingual’neatlycapturesboth,butcanalsoobscurethiscrucialdifference,particularlyatataxonomicortypologicallevel.Thetypologyproposedhereisdesignedtorelatemultilingualismtomultilingual-ity:languagepolicyviatherealisationofrelevantlanguagemodelsatschoollevelshouldseektoextendlearners’existinglanguagerepertoiresasresourcesforgreaterparticipatoryandliberatorycitizenship(Stroud200�;Stroud&Heugh2004).Theemphasisisonpoliticalandsocialparticipa-tionoflinguisticcommunitiesinamultilingualpolity–hencemultilingualcitizenship.Thusthetypologically-drivenneedtolabellanguagesasAfrikaans,English,isiXhosaandsoonshouldnotbemistakenforsubscriptiontothemodernistviewoflanguagesasdiscrete,countableandboundedunits(Makoni�998).Anylanguageclassificationsystemlaysitselfopentothechargeofessential-ismandofreproducingmultiplemonolingualismsratherthanaccountingformultilinguality,multi-voicedness,individuals’accesstomultiplesemioticresources.Ononelevel,itisunrealistictoexpectalanguageclassificationsystemforschoolstoappropriatepostmodernistconceptssuchasdisin-ventingandreconstitutinglanguages–tantalisingastheseareforthevitalprojectofre-standardisingAfricanlanguages.Yetpostmodernistnotionsofheteroglossia,individualrepertoire,crossing,affiliationandexpertiseunderpinthetypologypresentedhere.Theseexpressthemselvesinacritiqueofthemonolingualhabitusasreflectedinofficialclassificationsofalllearnersashavingonly

Whiletheformeriseasilypickedupininformalinteractionbetweenpeerswithinayearortwo,CALPtakesseveralyearstodevelop.SubsequentlyCumminsmodifiedhismodelintoafour-quadrantmatrixstakedoutbytwointersectingaxesrepresent-ingcontextualsupport(fromcontext-embeddedtocontext-reduced)forreceivingorexpressingmeaning,andcognitivedemand:thecognitively-undemandingtocognitively-demandingnatureofaparticulartask(Baker�993:�43).Thetaskoflanguageeducationistoenablelearnerstomovefromonequadranttothenext,graduallyreducingthescaffoldofcontextualsupportwhileincreasingcognitivedemand–aprocessaccomplishedboththroughexploratorytalk(cfRamani&Joseph2006)aswellasthroughliteracy.Cummins’interdependenceprinciple,orthecommonunderlyingproficiencymodel,impliesthatcognitively-demandingconceptsgraspedatacontext-reducedlevelaretransferableacrosslan-guagesinabilingualindividual(Baker�993:�40)–providedthatacertainthresholdoflanguageproficiencyhasbeenreached.Crucially,failuretofunctionfullyinoneorbothlanguagesmaynega-tivelyaffectalearner’scognitivefunctioningandacademicperformance(ibid:�35).

Whatthismeansisthatawell-developedhomelanguageisgenerallyaprerequisiteforthesuccessfullearningofanadditionallanguage.Thecorollary,asGough(�994:�0)cautiouslyputsit,isthat‘ifappropriatesupportisnotgiventothemothertongue,learninganadditionallanguagemaypossiblybequitedamagingtoboth’.Oneimplica-tionforchildrenwhospeakdominatedlanguagesisthatthetransitionfromthehomelanguagetoEnglish,assumingtherehastobeone,shouldbedelayeduntilatleasttheageof�2inordertoenablethetransferofCALP-ability(theabilitytofunc-tionatcognitivelydemandinglevelswithreducedcontextualsupport)fromthefirstlanguagetothesecondlanguagetotakeplace.Inthelessthanidealconditionsofsub-SaharanAfrica,ithasbeenconvincinglyargued,itwouldtakeatleast6–8years’exposuretoasecondlanguagebeforethelattercanbemeaningfullyusedasthe(main)languageofteaching(Alidouetal.2006).

Cummins’workhasbeenwidelyappropriatedinSouthAfrica.Inparticular,fromthelate-�980sonwardsitprovidedareadyexplanationforthefailureofex-DET3schoolingtoenableBantu-languagespeakinglearnerstomakeasuccessfultransitionfrommother-tongueeducation(MTE)toEnglishasmediumofinstruction(MoI)inStd.2

3 Theformer(apartheid-era)DepartmentofEducationandTraining(DET),responsibleforschoolingforBantu-lan-guagespeakers.

onehomelanguage2,inacritiqueofthefailuretoclassifylearnersindual-mediumclassesashavingtwolanguagesoflearningandteaching(LoLTs),intheattempttodevelopanuancedrangeofwhataretermedbi-LoLTmodelsthatsubscribetotheprincipleofLoLTintegrationwhileprovidingforbilingualandcodemixedassessment,andinthecallforaspeaker-centredapproachtolanguagepolicyformulationatschoollevelthattakesintoaccountchildren’slanguagebiographies.Recognisingtheneedforusinghomelanguagesasaresourceforlearningthestandardvarietyandtheworldofliteracythataccompaniesit,doesnotthereforemeansubscriptiontothestandardlanguageideol-ogy.Admittedly,itisnotalwayspossibletosignalthisheteroglossiaatthetypologicallevel.

Thediscussiontofollowreflectsthenear-consensusamongstresearchersworld-wide(ifnotamongstschoolcommunitiesthemselves)thateducationbasedonthehomelanguageormothertongueisgenerallymoreeffectivethanthatwhichisnot.Thatis,home-languagebased(henceforthHLb)educationisanecessary(ifinsufficient)conditionforpromotingeducationqualityasmeasuredbyperformanceatschoolandtheattainmentofadvancedbilingualismandbiliteracy.Fifty-oddyearsafterUNESCO’s(�953)valorisationofvernaculareducation,home-lan-guagebasededucationremainsvalidbecauseitislearner-centredandthereforepedagogicallysound,laysthefoundationforallother(includinglanguage)learning,consolidatesthesocio-culturalcoreofthechild’sidentity,ispoliticallyaffirmingofdominatedgroups,andisultimatelycost-effec-tiveeconomically.Inshort,whathasbeencalledthefirst-language-firstprinciple(Young2002)enjoysnear-universalsupport.

Whatisequallywellrecognisedinbilinguallearningtheoryisthatthehomelanguageisinmostcasesanecessarybasisforadditional-languagelearning.TheclassictheoreticalfoundationforthisviewderivesfromJimCummins,whoseworkhelpsexplainwhyadditional-languagelearnerswhohavesurface-levelfluencywhenconversingwiththeirfriendsareunabletoperformacademicallyintheiradditionallanguage.Initially,Cumminspositedabasicdistinctionbetweenbasicinterpersonalcom-municationskills(BICS),‘themanifestationoflan-guageproficiencyineverydaycommunicativecon-texts’(�984:�37)andcognitive/academiclanguageproficiency(CALP),the‘manipulationoflanguageindecontextualisedacademicsituations’(ibid.).

2 ThePanSALB-MarkDatasurveyof2000foundthatoneinthreeadultsinthecountryreportshavingtwohomelanguages.

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 32� �Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

(Grade4)4.Theassociatedterm-pairingof‘additive’and‘subtractivebilingualism’thathasbeenformativeinSouthAfricaneducationaldiscourse,isexplainedunder3.below.

2. Hegemony and the anglocentric linguistic marketTheworkofPierreBourdieuprovidesapowerfulex-planatoryframeworkforthecontinuedminorisationofBantu-languagespeakersinSouthAfrica,andofBantulanguagesintheeducationsystem.Inparticu-lar,Bourdieu’sworklendsitselftotheanalysisofthereproductionofsocialinequalitythroughlanguageineducation.Bourdieu’snotionoflinguisticexchangesasrelationsofsymbolicpower(�99�:37)ishelpfulinthecontextofahighlysociallystratified,multilin-gualsociety5.ForBourdieu,theprocessbywhichalanguagebecomesdominantisnotsimplyafunctionofthepoliticalwilltounification,butalso‘oftheunificationofthemarketinsymbolicgoodswhichaccompaniestheunificationoftheeconomyandalsoofculturalproductionandcirculation’(�99�:50).Language–particularlytheofficiallanguage–isaprimeexampleofasymbolicgood,whosegeneraliseduseispromotednotsomuchthroughinstitutionalsanctionorcompulsion,butthroughwhatBourdieutermssymbolicdomination:‘Allsymbolicdomina-tionpresupposes,onthepartofthosewhosubmittoit,aformofcomplicitywhichisneitherpassivesubmissiontoexternalconstraintnorafreeadherencetovalues’(�99�:5�).Thiscomplicityislocatedinthehabitus,asetofdispositionsthatliesbeyond‘theusualdichotomyoffreedomandconstraint’(ibid).Thehabitusisconstitutedbyattitudes,oftenunspoken,thatarepassedonbymeansofaprocessofsymbolicviolence.WhatBourdieuisdescribinghereishegem-ony,thesocialprocessbywhichadominantideologybecomesnaturalisedandisunquestioninglyacceptedbyboththedominantandsubordinate(subaltern)groupsaslegitimate.Intheunifiedlinguisticmarket,thosewithproficiencyinthedominantlanguage(‘legitimatecompetence’(ibid:55))havelinguisticcapitalthatyieldsaprofitofdistinctiononlytotheextentthattheyareanexclusiveclub.Onceenoughpeopleknowthedominantlanguage,itisnolongerascarceresource,andlegitimatecompetence,while

4 ItisaquirkofhistorythatCarolMacdonald’sinfluentialThresholdReportontheeffectsofthetransitiononAfrican-languagespeakinglearnerstoEnglishinStd.3(summedupinMacdonald�990),didnotalludetoCummins’thresholdhypothesis.MacdonaldhassaidshewasunawareofCummins’workatthetime(personalcommunication).

5 AsmeasuredbytheGinicoefficient,SouthAfricaisofficiallytheworld’smostunequalsociety,withthegreatestdifferencebetweenrichandpoor.

stillaformofculturalcapital,canthereforenolongerbestowadvantageonitsspeakers.ForBourdieu,theeducationsystemiscentraltothereproductionofinequalitybecause‘ithasthemonopolyinthelarge-scaleproductionofproducers/consumers’(ibid:57).

ThedeterminismofBourdieu’sotherwiseex-tremelyproductivesociologyoflanguagehasnotgoneunchallenged.Martin-Jones(2005),forexample,identifiestwoproblems:theexaggeratedemphasisonthesaturatingpowerofsymbolicdominationthatleaveslittleornoroomforagencyandthepossibilityofchangeinthestatusquo;andarathertoomonolithicviewoflinguisticmarketsas‘uni-fied’andunchangingovertime.Shepointsoutthat‘[t]heconditionsforthevaluationandlegitimationofalanguageandfortheexerciseofsymbolicpowerarealwayscontingentandchanging.Foreachofthesettingswherewewishtoinvestigatethepracticeofbilingualeducation,wealsoneedtobuildasocio-culturalandhistoricalaccountoftheseconditions’(2005:45).

ApplicationsofBourdieu’swork(�99�)intheSouthAfricaneducationalcontexthavehadexplana-torypowerwhenusedinconjunctionwithGramsci’sconceptofhegemony,(Gogolin�997,Iannici&Kok�999),withpost-colonialtheory(Niedrig2000),withNgugi’scritiqueofthecolonisedmindandwithwhatmightbetermedAfrican-languages-as-developmental-resourcestheory(seeAlexander2000,Heugh2003).Collectively,thesestudiesshowthatlanguagepolicyisdialecticallylinkedtostatusissues;thatis,theuseofaparticularlanguageforhigh-statusdomainssuchaseducationandtechnol-ogyisbothareflectionofitspowerinthepoliticaleconomy,andareinforcementofit.Inpost-colonialAfricancountriesinwhichformerliberationmove-mentsbecomerulingelitesandAfrican-languagespeakingmajoritiesremainsocialminorities(Alexander200�),educationallanguagepolicyin practicetendstobothreflect,anddeepen,theexistingpowerdifferential.Thesescholarshavehelpedexplaintheparadoxthatinpursuingassimilationistlanguagepractices,themajorityofpeopleinpost-colonialsocietiesappeartomisrecognisetheirownobjective(class)interests.Alexander(�995)hasdrawnatten-tiontotheneedtoresolvewhathecallsTollefson’sparadox,orthesituationwherebyasocietythatrequirespeopletobeproficientinthedominantlanguageatthesametimecreatestheconditionswherebysuchproficiencycannotbeattained.Thean-swer,Alexandersuggests,istoelevatethelanguagesspokenbythemajority,thedominatedlanguages,topositionsofpowerandstatusalongsideEnglish.Thequestioniswhetheremancipatorylanguagepolicyandpracticeintheeducationsystemcanchange

thesocietallanguageregime,orwhetheritisalwaysdeterminedbythelatter.

WhatfollowsisanhistoricalaccountoftheconditionsunderwhichbilingualeducationcametobeinSouthAfrica.Itimpliesthattheimpetusforchangingthestatusquowithregardtolanguagepolicyineducationmustcomefromsociety,fromwithout,asitwere.

3. bilingual education in South Africa: the two traditions Mother-tongueeducation(MTE)andbilingualeducationinSouthAfricabeartheweightofhistory(DeKlerk2002).UnlikeMTE,bilingualeducationisacontestedtermthathasatleasttwomeanings:

Thetermoriginallymeanttheuseoftwolanguagesasmediumsofinstruction.Itincluded,butwasnotrestricted,tothelearningoftwolanguagesassubjects.Thereforeitusuallymeans:theL�plusanL2asmediumsofinstruction.InSouthAfricabilingualeducationisunderstoodasmothertongueinstruction(L�medium)throughoutschoolplusasecondlanguagetaughtasasubjecttoahighlevelofproficiency.(Alidouetal2006:4)

Probablyunintentionally,theabovereferencetobi-lingualeducationinSouthAfricaappearstoexcludedual-mediumeducation.Ifwegivetheauthorsthebenefitofthedoubt,wefindthattheirviewofthetwomeaningsofbilingualeducationissimilartothatofJimCummins:

…bilingualeducationisgenerallydefinedintermsofthemeansthroughwhichparticulareducationalgoalsareachieved.Twoormorelanguagesareusedforinstructionalpurposesinordertopromotecer-tainkindsofeducationaloutcomes…However,thetermbilingualeducationissometimesdefinedinrelationtogoals,torefertoeducationalprogrammesthataredesignedtopromotebilingualproficiencyamongstudents.Whenusedinthisbroadersense,bilingualeducationmayentailinstructionprimarilythroughonlyonelanguage.(Cummins2003:5)

Takentogether,thetwoquotescapturethetwotraditionsofbilingualeducationinSouthAfrica.Historically,thetermbilingualeducationaroseinresponsetothestruggleforpoliticalcontrolandeconomicpowerbetweenAfrikaansandEnglishmorethanacenturyago.DuringtheUnionperiod(�9�0–�948),thedominantunderstandingofbilin-gualeducationwasdual-mediumeducation,inwhichAfrikaans-andEnglish-speakingwhitepupilswereschooledinthesameclassesinordertopromotenotonlybilingualism,butpoliticalreconciliationandsocialandculturalintegrationafterthebitterAnglo-Boer(SouthAfrican)wars.Thebilingualschool(cfMalherbe�943)washugelysuccessfulinlinguistic

andpedagogicterms,butfellfoulofthehegemonicaspirationsofAfrikaans-speakingwhitesovertheirEnglish-speakingcompatriots.Wellbefore�948theconservativeAfrikanerclasswereabletogiveexpres-siontotheiranti-Englishsentimentbyphasingoutdual-mediumeducationinfavourofparallel-stream(knownasparallel-medium)andsingle-mediumschools,aprocessthatwasacceleratedunderapart-heid.Thusbilingualeducationdefinedintermsofthemeansthroughwhicheducationalgoalsweretobeachieved–twomediaofinstruction–increas-inglymadewayforbilingualeducationunderstoodinrelationtothegoal,namelyofpromotingbilingualcompetenceamongstpupils.Ineffect,single-mediumschoolsinwhichthesecondlanguagewastaughtasacompulsorysubjectallthewaythroughfellwithintheambitofbilingualeducation.Whilethisisarguablyaweakerformofbilingualeducationthandual-me-dium,mostAfrikaans-speakersneverthelesslearntEnglishtoafairlyhighlevelinthisway,i.e.throughthesubjectroute.

Meanwhile,inthefirstphaseofBantuEducation(�955–�975),African-languagespeakersweregiventhepoisonedchaliceofMTE,followedbyaparticular-lydisablingformofdual-mediumeducation.Ironically,theprescriptionofMTEforalleightyearsofprimaryschoolingmayhavebenefitedawholegenerationoflearnersmorethanwasintendedbythearchitectsofapartheid(cfHeugh�995),andcertainlymorethansucceedinggenerationswholabouredunderearly-exittransitional(orearly-transit)programmes.Nothingunderlinesmoreclearlythefactthatapartheid-eralan-guagestrugglesbetweenAfrikaansandEnglishwerefoughtattheexpenseofBantu-languagespeakersthantheoppressive50/50ruling,intermsofwhichhalfthesubjectsatsecondaryschoolhadtobeinAfrikaans,andtheotherhalfinEnglish.Thefactthatthe50/50rulingwasnotwidelyappliedinblackschools(NEPI�992:28)doesnothingtocontradictthefactthatitwasacorruptionofthedual-mediumprinciple,sinceneitherofthetwolanguageswasahomelanguageforlearners.Inpurelytechnicaltermstheperiodofeightyears’MTEmightqualifytodayasmother-tonguebasedbilingual(ormultilingual)educationunderthebroadergoalsdefinition.

UnderBantuEducationPhaseII(�976–�994),thethreeyearsfollowingthe�976SowetorevoltweremarkedbytheterminationoftheuseofAfrikaansasMoIamongstAfrican-languagespeakers,thereductionofMTEtothefirstfourgrades,andthestatus-enhancementofEnglishtothepointwhereitbecamethesole(onpaper)MoIfromStd2/Grade4.Thefactthatstudentswere(consecutively)ex-posedtotwoMoItechnicallymakesthisearly-exittransitionalmodelacandidateforthemeansdefini-


tionofbilingualeducation,albeitaweakvariantofit.Themantelwouldbeill-fitting,however,astheofficiallybilingualapartheidstateunderstoodbilingualeducationtorefertotheAfrikaans/Englishcombinationonly.ForAfrican-languagespeakersallthreelanguagesremainedcompulsoryassubjectspracticallyallthewaythroughschooling.Despitethisdesignfeature,thelinguisticgoalwasnottopromoteadvancedcompetenceintwoormorelanguagesortoempowerAfrican-languagespeakers;onthecontrary.Apartheid-capitalism’ssegregationistprojectrequiredapoolofcheap(black)labourwithonlyalimitedcompetenceinthelanguagesofpower(AfrikaansandEnglish);andAfricanlanguageshadnoculturalcapitalinanycase.Thuswhileappearingtoqualifyasbilingualeducationonboththemeansandgoalsdefinitions,BantuEducationPhaseturnsouttobecompatiblewithneither.Theexampleisinterestingbecauseitsuggeststhatissuesofdefinitioninlan-guagemattersshouldbesubjecttolargersociologyoflanguageconsiderations.Putdifferently,languageregimesandthepowerhierarchyoflanguagesinsocietydeterminetheparameterswithinwhichthetechnicalaspectsoflanguageacquisitionplanningshouldbeunderstood.

Thedichomotouspairingof‘additive’and‘subtrac-tivebilingualism’enteredtheSouthAfricanlexiconsometimeintheearly�990sthroughtheNationalLanguageProject,theNationalEducationPolicyInvestigation(NEPI),andPRAESA.Theterms,tak-enfromtheworkofNorthAmericanandEuropeanresearcherssuchasLambert,Cummins,Skutnabb-Kangas,Ramirezandothersweretailor-madeforlocalconditionsdespitetheobviousdifferencesincontext6.ThiswasbecauseofthesimilaritiesinstatusbetweenlanguageminoritygroupsinthepoliticalNorth,andthedominatedpositionofblackpeopleandofBantulanguagesinSouthAfrica.OftenusedinconjunctionwithCummins’BICS/CALPdistinc-tion,‘subtractivebilingualism’referredtoschoolingthatneglectedorprematurelyabandonedlearners’mother-tongueorhomelanguageasLoLT,typicallyafteronlythreeorfouryears’use7.Subtractivebilin-gualism,alsotermedsubtractive/transitionalbilin-

6 TheworkofJ.DavidRamirezconfirmedthevalueofCummins’conceptsthroughthefindingsfromalongitudi-nalstudyintobilingualeducationintheUSA(Ramirezetal.�99�).Ramirez’visittotheNLPandPRAESAin�993helpedpopularisetheconceptsinSouthAfrica.

7 Despiteitsutilityacrossarangeofcontexts,uponcloserinspectiontheconceptofsubtractivebilingualismissomewhatoxymoronic,since‘youcan’tsubtractwhatisn’tthere’(TerryWiley,personalcommunication).Similarly,‘additivebilingualism’istautologous,sincetheattainmentof(individual)bilingualismimpliesanapriori‘additive’process.Forcritiquesofthisadjacencypairing,seeWiley(�996)andPlüddemann(�997).

gualismbyHeugh(�995),wasassociatedwithpooracademicperformance,lowlevelsofbilingualism,andanassimilationistmindsetthatvalorisedEnglishattheexpenseofAfricanlanguages.Thetermofferedlanguageactivistsandanalystsapowerfulcritiqueofthedisastrouslanguagepoliciesofthecrisis-riddledex-DETand,subsequently,ofstraight-for-English(immersionorsubmersion8)schoolingforAfricanlanguage-speakersinhistoricallywhiteandcolouredschools.

Additivebilingualism,itscorollary,cametostandforthemaintenanceofthemothertongueasLoLTforaminimumofsixyears,eitheraloneoralongsideasecondLoLT.Itsorientationwastowardsadvancedindividualbilingualism,cognitivedevelop-mentandsocialempowerment.Onthefaceofit,additivebilingualismrepresentedanachievablegoalforschoolingforAfrican-languagespeakers:simplyextendMTEuptotheendofGrade6or7(andpreferablybeyond),asAfrikaans-speakershaddonewithAfrikaans.Thetermbecamearallyingcryforlanguageactivists,andlentcoherencetoamovementforamoreliberatorylanguagepolicy,totheextentthatitwastobecomethecornerstoneofthefirstpost-apartheidlanguage-in-educationpolicy9.

Inthepre-�994periodofglasnost,apolicypapergeneratedundertheaegisoftheANC-alignedNationalEducationPolicyInvestigation(NEPI)recommendedareturntoastrongformofbilingualeducationundertherubricofnationaladditivebilingualism:

Astrictdefinitionofbilingualeducationrequiresthatboththedominant(e.g.English)andthesubordinatedlanguages(e.g.theAfricanlanguages)areusedatsomestageinthecurriculumasmediaofinstruction.TheuseandthedevelopmentoftheAfricanlanguagesaslanguagesofeducationwillhelptoavoidsubtractivebilingualismfortheirmother-tonguespeakersandwillalsohelptoenhancetheirstatus.(Luckett�993:76)

Thiswasaboldcall,foraswehaveseenitwentagainsttheprevailingtrendofaprogressivelyreducedroleforAfricanlanguagesineducation(from8yearsto4years),withpressurefromsomeschoolcommunitiesforastraight-for-Englishoption(seeHeugh�995).Luckett’sconcernwasfortheem-powermentofAfrican-languagespeakersthroughaformofbilingualeducationthatemphasizedthe

8 ThedifferenceisthatsubmersioncharacterisesthecompleteabsenceoftheMTfromtheschooltimetable,whereasimmersionreferstotheuseoftheMTasasubjectonly,oftenatsecond-orthird-languagelevel.TheseusesfollowThomas&Collier(�997).

9 ItalsolentitsnametotheAdditiveBi-lingualEducation(ABLE)project,anexperimentaldual-mediumprogrammeinaruralpartoftheEasternCape.SeeKochetal2009.

means–twomediaofinstruction–inordertoensurebilingualcompetenceandthestatusenhancementofspeakers.Underpressurefromthe‘realityprinciple’ofthepopularaspirationforEnglish,NEPIdilutedLuckett’smoreradicalmultilingualismtovariousoptionsthat,ultimately,failedtochallengethehegemonyofEnglish.

�. Policy support for (additive/mother-tongue-based/HLb) bilingual education Thefirstlanguage-in-educationpolicy(DoE�997)ofthedemocratic,officiallymultilingualSouthAfricawas‘conceivedofasanintegralandnecessaryaspectofthenewgovernment’sstrategyofbuildinganon-racialnationinSouthAfrica’.TheLiEPhasamongitsaimsthepursuitof‘thelanguagepolicymostsupportiveofgeneralconceptualgrowthamongstlearners,andhencetoestablishadditivemultilingual-ismasanapproachtolanguageineducation’.Thenation-buildingprojectwasenabledbyapoliticalconcessiontothevocalpro-Afrikaanslobby,whichinsistedontherighttosingle-mediumschools.Asaresult,thesetoohadtobeaccommodatedundertherubricofadditivemultilingualism(DeKlerk2002).Whiletheprinciplewasmadeexplicit,theroutestoattainingitweredeliberatelyleftopen:

Awidespectrumofopinionsexistsastothelocallyviableapproachestowardsmultilingualeducation,rangingfromargumentsinfavourofthecognitivebenefitsandcost-effectivenessofteachingthroughonemedium(homelanguage)andlearningad-ditionallanguage(s)assubjects,tothosedrawingoncomparativeinternationalexperiencedemonstratingthat,underappropriateconditions,mostlearnersbenefitcognitivelyandemotionallyfromthetypeofstructuredbilingualeducationfoundindual-me-dium(alsoknownastwo-wayimmersion)pro-grammes.Whicheverrouteisfollowed,theunderly-ingprincipleistomaintainhomelanguage(s)whileprovidingaccesstoandtheeffectiveacquisitionofadditionallanguage(s).Hence,theDepartment’spositionthatanadditiveapproachtobilingual-ismistobeseenasthenormalorientationofourlanguage-in-educationpolicy.Withregardtothedeliverysystem,policywillprogressivelybeguidedbytheresultsofcomparativeresearch,bothlocallyandinternationally.

Apartfromsomeunstableterminology(‘additivemultilingualism’,‘anadditiveapproachtobilingual-ism’,‘structuredbilingualeducation’and‘multilingualeducation’appeartobeusedinterchangeablyattimes),thepolicyisquiteclearabouttheprimacyofthegoalsanditsguidingprinciple.However,thefactthattheLiEPindicatestwoofitspreferred‘deliverysystems’(single-mediumMTEandstructureddual-medium

education)illustratestheinterconnectednessofgoalsandmeansindefinitionsofbilingualeducation.ItalsosuggeststhatCummins’(2003)distinctionbetweenmeansandgoalsdefinitionsmayneedtoberefined.

TheLiEPisperhapsbestdescribedasasymbolicratherthanamaterialpolicyduetotheabsenceofanimplementationplan.This,combinedwiththefactthatitisunenforceableduetoitsessentiallyvoluntar-istcharacter,meansthatitslackofrealisationsince�997ishardlysurprising.Theendorsementofofficialmultilingualismatapolicylevelcontinuestostandincontradictiontotheoft-citedhegemonyofEnglishinthepublicsphere(cf.Alexander200�).A‘gridlockofcollusion’�0existsbetweentherulingEnglish-know-ingeliteandtheEnglish-seekingmasses.ComparedtothemassiveinvestmentinhumanandmaterialresourcesbytheDoEinsqueezingschoolingintoanoutcomes-basedmould,governmentcommitmenttotheLiEPhasbeen,atbest,half-hearted��.Thelackofpoliticalwillinrelationtothecapacitationofschoolgoverningbodies,forinstance(cf.Probynetal.2002),hasfounditscounterpartinanoftenill-consideredflightfromthemothertonguebyAfrican-languagespeakersinthequestforaqualityEnglish-mediumeducation,inemulationoftheelites.ForthemajorityofspeakersofAfricanlanguages,thiscollusionhasresultedinthemostdebilitatingschoollanguagepracticestodate,namelylimitingMTEtoamerethreeyearsbeforetheprematuretransitiontoEnglishasLoLT.ItistragicthatthemaximaluseofEnglish–whatBrock-Utne(2004),followingPhillipson,callsthemaximumexposurefallacy–isviewedbythema-jorityofschoolsinthestillimpoverishedtownshipsasthebestguaranteeofeducationalsuccess,economicsecurityandsocialmobility.Forithastheveryop-positeeffect,aspoorresultsinsystemicevaluationsinliteracyandnumeracycontinuetoshow�2.UnlikeEnglish-speakersandmanyAfrikaans-speakers,whoexperienceMTEallthewaythroughschooling,mostspeakersofAfricanlanguagesthusremaineducation-allydisadvantaged.

InadditiontotheLiEP,thereisconsiderablepolicysupportnationallyandprovinciallyforanadditiveormother-tonguebasedorhome-languagebasedbilingualeducationapproach.TheRevisedNationalCurriculumStatement(DoE2002)goessomewaytosupportingtheLiEP’sadditivemultilingualism,althoughnotwithoutsomeambivalence.Itrecommendsthat

�0Alexander’sterm,ascitedinPlüddemann2003��TheDoE’s200�language-in-educationpolicyimple-

mentationplanisaflaweddocumentthatwasneverimplemented.

�2SeeDoE2005,forexample,whichidentifieslanguageasamajorfactorinGrade6learners’performancesinliteracyandnumeracy.


thelearner’shomelanguageshouldbeusedforlearningandteachingwhereverpossible.ThisisparticularlyimportantintheFoundationPhasewherechildrenlearntoreadandwrite.Wherelearnershavetomakeatransitionfromtheirhomelanguagetoanadditionallanguageasthelanguageoflearningandteaching,thisshouldbecarefullyplanned…

In2008theDepartmentofEducationannouncedthatitwascommittedtoanationalmother-tongueeducationpilotprojecttoGrade6�3.Thusthereisstrongpolicysupportforanadditive-ormother-tonguebasedorhome-languagebasedbilingualeducationatanationallevel.Asimilarorientationinformstwoprovincialpilotprojects,intheWesternCapeandintheEasternCape,respectively.

Mother-tongue-basedbilingualeducation(MTbBE)isakeyconceptintheLanguageTransformationPlan(LTP)oftheWesternCapeEducationDepartment(WCED2006).TheLTPseekstoenhancethestatusanduseofhomelanguagesineducationby,centrally,supportingschoolstoextendtheuseofisiXhosaforteach-ingandlearning(includingassessment)throughGrade6.Theplan,finalizedin2006,firstlaunchedin2007andrevivedin2009,aimstosupport�6pilotschoolstousethemothertongueforteachinguptoatleasttheendofGrade6,andalsoseekstopromoteconversationaltrilingualism.In2007/8oneteacherfromeachofthepilotschoolswassponsoredbytheWCEDtocompleteanadaptedin-servicequalification,theAdvancedCertificateinBilingualEducation(ACE).ThecoursewasofferedbytheeducationfacultyattheUniversityoftheWesternCapeandPRAESA,andsoughttomodelitsmes-sagebyofferingsometeachingandassessmentinisiXhosa(alongsideEnglish)�4.Italsoattractedtheinterestofeducationalpublishers,forwhomtheex-pandingmarketinXhosa-languagetextbooksacrossthecurriculumofferedanenticingprospect.YettheLTPisindangeroflosingmomentum.TheACEhasnotbeenofferedagainasWCEDsponsorshipwasnotrenewed,theLTPprojectmanagerresignedinDecember2009andthepositionwasonlyfilledseveralmonthsdowntheline,andatleastoneseniorofficialhaspubliclyunderminedtheLTP.Allisnotlost,however,asliteracyandnumeracyresultsfromsomeofthe�6pilotschoolshaveimproved,forcinggovernmenttoacknowledgethevalueofahome-languagebased(bilingual)education.

�3AddressbyJennyKinnear(DoE)atanationalcolloquiumonmothertongue-basedbilingualeducation,hostedbyPRAESAattheUniversityofCapeTown,5–6December2008

�4SeePlüddemann,Nomlomo&Jabe(forthcomingeditionofAlterNation)foranaccountoftheACEprogramme.

Prospectsforadditive-ormother-tonguebasedbilingualeducationintheEasternCapeappeartobegood.TheHome-Language-basedBilingualEducationprojectisaninitiativeoftheprovincialDepartmentofEducation,supportedbytheAdditiveBi-LingualEducation(ABLE)project,PRAESA,thePanSouthAfricanLanguageBoard,andtheEasternCapeSocialandEconomicConsultativeCouncil.RecentlyrelocatedtotheofficeoftheDeputyDirector-GeneralundertheaegisoftheMECforEducation,theprojectisapotentiallyfar-reachingattemptatimprovingeducationindisad-vantagedlocalesinwhatisapredominantlyruralandXhosa-speakingprovince.Atpresent,mostschoolsintheEasternCapeswitchtoEnglishafteronlythreeyearsofmother-tongueeducation.Thelackoffitbetweenthelearner’shomelanguageandtheschool’slanguageofteachingisbynowwidelyrecognisedasakeyfactorincontinuedpoorperformancesinGrade6literacyandnumeracytests,andinthematricexamsattheendofGrade�2.

TheoverallaimoftheEasternCapeprojectistodemonstratehowthenationallanguage-in-educa-tionpolicy(LiEP)ofadditivebilingualeducationcanberealizedinsomepilotschoolsintheEasternCape,withaviewtoasubsequentroll-outacrosstheprovince(ECDoE2009).Theprojectrecognisesthatunlesschildren’shomelanguagesareusedforteachingandlearningforatleastthefirstsixgrades,academicperformancewillsuffer.Atthesametime,itacknowledgesparentalpressureforEnglish.Theconceptofhome-language-basedbilingualeducationismeanttosignalthisdualawareness.Becauseitappearsinnationallegislationsuchasthelanguage-in-educationpolicyandtheNationalCurriculumStatement,thetermhomelanguagewaspreferredtomothertongue.

ThepilotprojectistoinvolvesevenXhosa-domi-nantprimaryschoolsthatarespreadgeographicallythroughouttheprovince.Theschoolswillcomefromthreemainlyruraldistricts(Cradock,Qumbu,Cofimvaba)andonemainlyurbandistrict(EastLondon).TheCradockschool,SosebenzaPrimary,hasahead-start,asithasbeensupportedbyprojectABLEinasimilarprogrammesince2002(seeKochetal2009).Theschoolissettobecomearesourceforthesixnewpilotschools.Astartingdateforfull-onsupporttotheschoolshasbeenagreedupon( July20�0),andtherehasbeensomeprogresstowardstheestablishmentofanHLbBEunittosupporttheprocess,withtheNelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversityinPortElizabethemergingasthemostlikelyhost.

5. Clarifying MTbbE 5.1 South African usesInSouthAfricatoday,arangeofeducationists,researchersandlanguageactivistsassociatetheirworkwiththeconceptofmothertongue-basedbilingualeducation(MTbBE)�5.Thetermwasoriginallyiden-tifiedmainlywithPRAESA,whosestrategicpeda-gogicalobjectivesince200�/2hasbeen‘theestablish-mentofamother-tongue-basedbilingualeducationsystem.InthisconceptionEnglish,ratherthananyotherimportantlanguage,istakentobetheconstantelementintheequation’(Alexander2003:�2).Thecentralconcernisthattheeducationsystemshouldbebasedonlearners’mothertongueswhileprovidingaccesstoEnglish,thegloballinguafranca.Insuchasystem,theMTfeaturesastheformativemediumofeducation,preferablythroughoutschoolingandevenintotertiaryeducation(ibid:27).

Despiteitsimportanceandgrowinguse,MTbBEasaconceptremainssurprisinglyvague.Whilethereisgeneralagreementontheoverallobjective,theabsenceofcleardefinitionsandasetofrelevantmodelstoillustratetheconceptarecausinguneaseandevenconfusionamongstschoolcommunitiesandserviceprovidersintheWesternCape.Partofthereasonforthisvaguenessistheexistenceofcontend-ingdefinitionsofMTbBEinthepublicrealm.Itmaythusserveausefulpurposetounpacktheterm.However,given‘thecomplexitiesofattemptingtocategorizebilingualeducationprogrammesinanyrigidmanner’(Cummins2003:5),itwillbeimportantnottobecometoodogmaticintheprocessofdefin-ingtheterms.

Wehavealreadydiscussedthetwocontendingdefinitionsofbilingualeducation,above.AsimilartendencycanbeseenincurrentunderstandingsofMTbBEinSouthAfrica.Ontheonehand,wehavethegoals-orienteddefinition,whichallowsfor‘arangeofpossiblepermutations:single-mediumschoolsareacceptable,providedthereisnoexclusiononthebasisofcolourorreligion.TheprovisowillbequalityEnglishteaching.Inpractice,mostschoolsarelikelytobecomedual-andparallel-mediuminstitutions’(Alexander2005:9).SuchanunderstandingofMTbBEestablishescontinuitywiththeinclusivespiritofthe�997nationallanguage-in-educationpolicy,andwillreassureAfrikaanssingle-mediumschools.However,positioningMTbBEasthesucces-sortermtoadditivemultilingualismdoesnotsayhowitdiffersfromthemoretraditionalmodesofdelivery

�5SeeLEAPnews2�&22(Plüddemann20�0)forareportonthenationalcolloquiumonmothertongue-basedbilingualeducation,hostedbyPRAESAinDecember2008.

(single-,dual-,parallel-medium).Whilethementionofthesemodesillustratesthatmeansandendsarecloselylinked,itdoesnotclarifythe‘value-added’elementofMTbBE.

Themeans-orienteddefinitionofMTbBEsimilarlydoesnotprovideagreatdealofguidance.TheWesternCapeEducationDepartment’sLTPmentionsMTbBEonlyonce,undertheplan’sfirsttransformationtarget,whichisto‘supportuseofMTasLoLTtilltheendofGrade6,wherepracticable’.Theformulationisasfollows:

…alearner’smother-tongueshouldbeactivelysup-portedintheclassroombytheuseofthemother-tongueasthelanguageoflearningandteaching(LoLT),whereverpracticable,atleastuntiltheendofGrade6inclassgroupsof40(primary)learners.Theidealwillbemother-tonguebasedbilingualeducation(MTbBE),whichmeansthatthemothertongueisusedforlearningandanadditionallanguageisgraduallyaddedandstrengthenedtothepointwhereitcouldbetheLoLTafteraperiodofsaysixyears.(WCED2006)

Thenoteofbureaucraticcautionisunmistakeable.Thecrucialclauseaboutstrengtheningtheadditionallanguageisfrustratinglycryptic,butdoesimplymodesofdeliveryinwhichlearnersareexposedtotwoLoLTsduringtheirprimaryschooling.ThesuggestionisthatMTbBEinvolvesintroducingtheadditionallanguage(readEnglish)asasubjectfromdayone.EnglishisstrengthenedthroughincrementaluseasasupportiveLoLTalongsidetheMT-LoLT,beforeittakesoverasthesoleLoLTfromGrade7.Thatis,thepresumptionisforalate-exittransitionalbilingualprogrammewithdual-mediumfeatures.Butitdoesnotsayhowthismightberealisedinpractice.Theformulationimpliesthatanother(non-MTbBE)routetotheplan’sfirsttransformationtargetexists,butdoesnotspelloutwhatthismightbe.ThustheWCED’sadoptionofthemeansdefinitionistoocryptictohelpschoolswishingtoputMTbBEtowork.

ApamphletproducedbyPRAESAinsupportoftheWCED’slanguagetransformationplanin2007providesadetailedrationaleforMTbBE,butsayslittleabouttheform(s)itmighttake.‘Mothertongue-basedbilingualeducationmeanslearninginthemothertonguefirstandforaslongaspossible.Anotherlanguageisaddedgraduallyandbothlan-guagesgetusedforteachingandlearning.’And,‘wespeakofamothertongue-basedbilingualeducationalsysteminthosecaseswherethemothertongueisnottheonlylanguageoflearningandteaching’(WCED&PRAESA2007).

Thefirststatementislearner-centredandsug-geststhatMTbBEinvolvesconcurrentexposuretotwoLoLTsafteraninitialMTphase.Tothatextent


theformulationoverlapswiththeWCEDversion.ButthePRAESAdefinitiondoesnotspecifytheminimumpermissibledurationofMT-as-LoLT;andthereisnomentionofatransitionattheendofGrade6.Thisimpliesthatbothlate-exittransitionalaswellasstructureddual-mediumprogrammes(totheendofGrade7)qualifyasMTbBE.Therefer-encetosystem introducesaninstitutionaldimension,althoughthisisnotelaborated.Whatseemsclear,though,isthatsingle-mediumschoolsarenotin-cluded,meaningthattheformulationconformstothemeansdefinitionofMTbBE.

ThuscurrentdefinitionsofMTbBE,therefore,donot‘speakwithonevoice’.Itisironicthattheclearest,mostdetaileddefinitionofMTbBEisnolongerincirculationbecauseitwasovertakenbypoliticaleventsintheWesternCapeanddoesnothaveofficialstatus.Areportproducedfor/bytheprovincialeducationde-partmentglossesMTbBEasfollows(WCED2002):

Mother-tongue-basedbilingualeducation(MTE)is,intheSouthAfricancontext,amorepersuasiveandmoreeasilycomprehensiblerenderingofthemeaningof‘additivemultilingualism’.Itincludesthefollowingdefinitionalfeatures:

a) usingthemother-tongue(=homelanguage(s)orL�)ofthechild/learnerasaformative LoltfromDay�inGradeRorGrade�uptoandincludingthelastdayoftheschoolyearinGrade6;

b) introducingthefirstadditionallanguage(FAL)asasubjectassoonaspossibleinthefoundationphase,includingGradeR;

c) assumingthatadual-mediumapproachispreferredbytheparentsorguardians,graduallyusingtheFALasasupportive Loltasandwhenthechildrenhaveadequatecompetence;and

d) ideally,usingL�+FALascomplementary Loltsata50:50levelbytheendofGrade6.Normally,however,otherpermutationsofthisdual-me-diummodelcanbeexpectedtoprevailbecauseofteachers’limitedlanguageproficiencyandsubjectknowledgeaswellasotherconstraintsofamaterialormanagerialnature.

Note:InthecontextoftheWesternCape,anyreferencetobilingualismandtoathirdlanguagerelatestoAfrikaans,EnglishandXhosaandtocombinationsthereof.

MTbBEisclearlyamorecomplextermthananyofitspredecessors,combiningelementsofapedagogicorlearner-orienteddimension(‘mother-tonguebased’)withatermthatcarriesaheavysignallingload(bilingualeducation).Theextendeddefinitionisquitespecificaboutthefavouredlanguagedistributionmodel.

Yetwhilethesignifierisnew,thesignifiedisnot.

Strippedofits2�stcenturynomenclature,MTbBE(ortheidealversionoutlinedin(c)and(d),above)issimilartothemodeladoptedbytheformerBoerRepublicsalmostacenturypreviously.ThelattermadeMTEcompulsoryforthedurationofprimaryschooling(7years)whileintroducingthesecondlanguageasasubjectandgraduallyandincreasinglyusingitasa‘subsidiary’MoI,beforedeployingbothMoIsonanequalfootingindual-mediumclassesinhighschool(cfMalherbe�977:6).MTbBEisalsosimilarinconceptiontothe90:�0dual-languageimmersionmodelinUSbilingualeducation(cfThomas&Collier�997),whichusesdifferentter-minologytooutlinethesamebasicideaofscaffold-ingthesecondlanguagealongsidetheMT-LoLT.ThedifferenceisthatMTbBE,intheWCED2002conceptionislimitedtothefirstsixgrades.Thereisnovisionforadual-mediumarrangement,orforsocio-culturalintegrationofdifferentlanguagegroupsinhighschool.OnelikelyreasonistheassumptionthatAfrican-language-speakingparentswouldtolerateamaximumofsixyears’MTbBEandinsistonEnglishassoleLoLTthereafter.Asecondreasonshastodowiththedesignofthecurriculumintothree-yearphases,thepenultimateoneofwhich(Grade7–9)cutsacrossthecurrentconfigurationofmostprimaryschools(�–7).Whateverthereason,MTbBEinitsWCED2002variantimpliesanexitfortheMTasLoLToncetheFALisreadytofunctionasLoLT,inthiscaseattheendofGrade6.Itisalate-exittransitionalbilingualmodel,withdistinctivedual-mediumfeatures.

However,theformulationisnotwithoutitsowngaps.Followingthepresumptionofparentalprefer-encefordual-mediumeducationin(c),theidealversionofthisassumedpreferenceisspeltoutin(d),asifdual-medium(inoneformoranother)weretheonlyoption.But(d)doesnotaddressthepossibility,impliedin(c),thatparentalpreferencemightnotbefordual-medium,butforthecontinuationofsingle-mediumMTEtotheendofGrade6,providedthesecondlanguageisknownwellenoughbythenforittotakeoverasLoLT.Suchanabrupt,ifdelayed,exitoftheMTasLoLTwouldamounttoalate-exittransitionalbilingualprogrammewithsingle-mediumfeatures.ProvidedparentsaresatisfiedthatthequalityofEnglishteachingisgood,theymaywelloptforsuchanapproach–particularlyiftheyarenotconvincedoftheEnglishcompetenceoftheotherteachers.

Whateverthegaps,theWCED’s2002definitionofMTbBEappearstofavourthelate-exitmodelwithscaffoldeddual-mediumfeatures,ratherthanthevariantwithsingle-mediumfeatures.Theamountofdetailintheabovedefinitionwouldhavehelpedof-ficials,researchersandschoolsconceptualiseMTbBE.

Itisunfortunate,therefore,thatitdoesnotcarryofficialsanction.

Understandingthereasonsforthecurrentvague-nessattheheartofMTbBEisanecessaryconditionforaddressingit.Currentdefinitions,whetherofthegoals-orthemeans-orientation,arenotdetailedenoughtohelpschoolsandserviceprovidersconcep-tualiseMTbBE.ThecallbyaseniorWCEDofficial,madeattherevivaloftheLTPinMarch2009,foracommonunderstandingofMTbBEmodelsisthereforehighlyrelevant�6.

5.2 International usesIninternationalappropriationsofthetermMTbBE,thereispracticallyconsensusonitsgoalsand,toalesserextent,onthemeanswherebythesearetoberealised.Together,theintegrationofgoalsandmeansdefinitionssuggestsanewsynthesis.

OntheAfricancontinent,thetermhasfounditswayintotheAfricanAcademyofLanguages(ACALAN),thelanguageagencyoftheAfricanUnion.OneofACALAN’scoreprojects,thePanafricanMaster’sandPhDProjectinAfricanlanguagesandAppliedLinguistic(PAMAPAL),aimstobuildacoreoflanguagepractitioners,linguistsandeducatorstohelpintellectualisetheAfricanlanguages.

Inthisregard,weareespeciallyconcernedaboutthefacilitationandestablishmentofmothertongue-basedbi/multilingualeducationalsystemsonthecontinent.Asinmostotherregionsoftheworld,AfricancultureingeneralandAfricanlanguagesinparticulararealsothreatenedbythecurrenttrendofglobalisation,manifestedin,amongotherphe-nomena,theglobalhegemonyofEnglish.TheroleofAfricanuniversitiesinthiscontextistoensurethatthelanguagesofthepeopleareappropriatelypositionedinalldomainsoflife.IfAfricanlan-guagesaretobestrengthenedinordertobeoneofthedecisivefeaturesoftheAfricanrenaissanceandofthe‘Africancentury’(withallthatthisimpliesinsocial,economicandpoliticalterms),adedicated,competentcorpsoflanguageprofessionalshastobecreatedandconsolidatedinthecourseofthenexttenyears,moreorless.(ACALANn.d.)

Theslightalterationofthetermtomothertongue-basedbi/multilingualeducationalsystemsisstronglyreminiscentofAlexander’scaveat(quotedabove)that‘bilingual’isnottobetakentooliterally,as‘thetermimpliesmultilingualsystems’(Alexander2003:32).Whatisinterestingabouttheabovepassageisthatnodefinitionisattempted.Anditisaboutmorethangoals.MT-basedbi/multilingualeducationisslatedtobeakeybeneficiaryoftheintellectualisationof

�6On6March2009GenevieveKoopman,WCEDcur-riculumdirectorforGradesR–9,saidthatitwas‘importanttoreachacommonunderstandingofmother-tonguebasedbilingualeducationmodels’.

Africanlanguages.Thelatterprojectisdescribedasindispensabletoahistoriccounter-hegemonicstrat-egyonthecontinent,undertheaegisoftheAfricanrenaissance,againsttheforcesofglobalisationandthehegemonyofEnglish.Itisaquintessentiallymodern-ist‘grandnarrative’intermsofwhichtheAfricanrenaissanceandthe‘Africancentury’arepositionedasthefulfilmentofhistory.Thisgoesbeyondameregoals-orienteddefinitionofbilingualeducation.Ineffect,bilingualeducationhasbeenelevatedtotherealmoftheteleological.

Otherinternationalusesofthetermbi-ormultilingualeducation/MTbBEhaveavoidedteleology,withoutsacrificingaclearsetofgoalsoradetaileddescriptionofmeans.CarolBenson,writingfromwithinaglobalbilingualeducationperspective,acknowledgesherdebttoAlexanderandPRAESA:‘[MTbBE]isbeingpromotedbymySouthAfricancolleaguestorefertobilingualschoolingusingtraditionallymarginalizedindigenouslanguagesalongwithofficialones,differentiatingsuchschoolingfromthatusingtwoelitelanguagessuchasFrench/EnglishorPortuguese/English’(Benson2004:2).Itisthusaclearexampleofthemeansdefinitionofbilingualeducation(twoLoLTs).

TheappropriationofMTbBEbyBensonaswellasbySILhas,inturn,beeninfluentialelsewhere.TheinternationalcharitySavetheChildrenhasadoptedMTbBEasitslanguage-in-educationapproach,whichisexplainedasfollows:

‘Mothertonguebasedbilingualeducation’meansstartingwiththelearner’sknowledgeandexperi-ences;providingthechildwithafoundationintheirfirstlanguageandbuildingasecondlanguageonthis.Oral,reading,writingandthinkingskillsaredevelopedinthefirstlanguage,whileteach-ingthesecondlanguageasasubject.Exposuretothesecondlanguagegraduallyincreases,withoutsacrificingchildren’sliteracyandcognitioninthefirstlanguage.Additionallanguagescanbeaddedinthisway(termedmothertonguebasedmultilingualeducation).(SavetheChildren(UK):c. 2007).

MTbBEinthisdefinitionisalearner-centred(ratherthanasystem)terminwhichtheemphasisfallsontheformativeroleoftheMTincognitive-linguistic(includingliteracy)development.Asequentialbilingualismgraduallymakeswayforasimultaneousbilingualismviaaphaseddual-mediumapproach;tellingly,thereisnoreferencetoanexitmomentfortheMT,implyingtheundesirabilityofatransitionalbilingualmodel.Interestingly,theadditionoffurtherlanguagesisreferredtoasmothertonguebasedmultilingualeducation,althoughitisnotaltogetherclearwhetherthismonikerappliesonlyifandwhenthethirdlanguageisusedasaLoLT.Ifso,itwouldfitthecurrentmodelofsomeofthe(primaryand


highcombined)Europeanschools,wherepupilsareexposedsystematicallytothreemediaofinstructionoverthecourseoftheirschooling.Butitisdoubtfulifthestrongversionofthisapproach(threeMoI)hasrelevanceelsewhere.

UNESCO’sAdvocacy Kit for Promoting Multilingual Education: Including the Excluded(2007),writtenforAsiaandthePacific,isacom-prehensivetextconsistingofageneralorientationtolanguagepolicyintheregion,andseparatebookletsforpolicymakers,programmeimplementers,andcommunitymembers,respectively.TheKitalsorep-resentsasynthesisofthetwotraditionsofbilingualeducation.

Thebestwaytoovercomethesechallenges[ofexclusion]isthrough‘mothertongue-basedmultilingualeducation’(MLE).InstrongMLEprogrammes,learnersfromnon-dominantlanguagecommunitiesusetheirownlanguageforlearningintheearlygradesastheyarealsolearningtheofficiallanguageasasubject.Asthelearnersgaincompe-tenceinspeaking,readingandwritingthenationallanguage,teachersbeginusingitforteaching.ThebestMLEprogrammesencouragelearnerstousebothlanguagesforcommunicationandforlearningthroughoutprimaryschool.

Theaboveextractappearstoconformtothemeansdefinition,wherebytheformofMTbBE/MLEisspelltout.Whatisalittlesurprising,giventhediversityofcontextsreferredtointhereport(thewholeofAsiaandthePacific),istheprescriptionthat,ineffect,anincrementaldual-mediummodelonmother-tonguefoundationsshouldbefollowed.Interestingly,thedocument’sreferenceto‘strong’MLEprogrammesimpliesthatthereareweakerMLEversions.Thesearenotelaborated,althoughtheimplicationistheyareprogrammesinwhichthelearners’ownlanguageisnotusedformativelyinacquiringliteracy,ornotusedlongenoughtoeffectasuccessfultransferofconceptstothesecondlanguage.

Elsewhere,however,thegoals-orientationofUNESCO’ssupportformultilingualeducationishighlighted:improvingeducationalquality,pro-motingsocialandgenderequality,andenhancing

interculturalcommunicationthrougheducation.Thementionofgenderdoesnotfeatureinanyoftheotherdefinitions,andaddsanewandinclusivedimension.Thegoals-orientationofthedefinitionisdeepenedinthefollowingextract:

Inadditiontoeducationalandlong-termfinancialbenefits,MLEprogrammesserveawiderpurpose.GovernmentsupportforstrongMLEprogrammesdemonstratestoallcitizensthatminoritylanguages,andthosewhospeakthelanguages,arevalued.MLEprogrammesthathelplearnerstobuildagood‘bridge’betweentheirhomelanguageandtheofficiallanguageshelptobuildnationalunitywithoutforcingpeopletosacrificetheiruniquelinguisticandculturalheritage.Experiencesaroundtheworldhavedemonstratedthatdenyingorsuppressingpeople’slinguisticandculturalheritagehasbeenacausefordivisionandstrife.MLEsup-portsunitythroughaffirmingdiversityratherthaninsteadofdiversity.(UNESCO2007–ProgrammeImplementersBooklet,p.26)

Thereferencestocitizenship,nation-building,andthesupportofunitythroughaffirmingdiversityconstitute,togetherwiththeaforementionededu-cationalandfinancialbenefits,astrongrationaleforMTbBE/MLE.

Takentogether,theUNESCOexplanationsofMTbBE/MLEsuggestanewsynthesisofmeansandgoalsdefinitions.Theanalysisoftheproblems(ofinequalityarisingfromexclusionandmarginali-sationofspeakersofdominatedlanguages)leadstotherationaleforchangeinaspecificcontext(socialintegration,citizenship,communityandnationalcohesion,respectforlinguisticandotherhumanrights),whichleadsinelctuablytoaparticularformofinterventionwithinspecifiedparameters(MLE).Theapparentprescriptionconcerningthemeansisderiveddirectlyfromananalysisofthesitua-tion,readagainstfirstprinciplesthatemphasisesocialjustice:incontextsinwhichsocialminoritylanguagesaremarginalisedbypowerfulnationallanguages,theoptimalmodelisanincrementalformofdual-mediumeducationonmother-tongueorhome-languagefoundations.

Part Two: Towards a Learner-centred TypologyTheterms‘HomeLanguage’and‘MotherTongue’areglossedseparately,whenitwouldhavebeenmoreusefultocombinetheminonedefinitionthatmentionsbothfrequencyofuseinthehomeenvironment,anduseasinstrumentofcognitionandcommunication.Furthermore,thedefinitionofHomeLanguageas‘[t]helanguagethatismostspokenathomebyalearner’doesnotallowformorethanonehomelanguage,andinsodoingperpetuatesthemonolingualhabitus.

ThedefinitionofLanguageofLearningandTeaching(LOLT)as‘alanguagemediumthroughwhichlearningandteachingincludingassess-mentoccurs’isvalidfordominantlanguages,i.e.EnglishandAfrikaans.ButitdoesnotaddresstherealityofBantu-languagecontexts.Thedefinitionblithelyassumesalinguisticunityofteaching-learning-assessment,i.e.itdoesnotacknowledgethatthelanguageofassessmentinmostBantu-languagecontextsisfrequentlynotthelanguageusedforteaching,particularlyfromGrade4upwards.Thatistosay,itignoreswhatintheEasternCapeandtheWesternCapemightbetermedtheOXWE(OralXhosa,WrittenEnglish)phenomenon.

Theexistingsingle/dual/parallelclassificationofschoolsbylanguagemediumdoesnotcaterforthemajorityofprimaryschools(i.e.ex-DET)inthecountry,mostofwhichofferhome-language(MT)educationtotheendofGrade3before(officially)switchingtoEnglishastheLoLT.Areadyalternativedoesexist,namelytheinter-nationallyacceptedtermearly-exittransitionalbilingualeducation,whichwewillabbreviateasearly-transit.

TheDictionarylackstheconceptofalanguagestream,atermusefulfordistinguishingbetweenparallelclassesseparatedbyLoLT(s).ThegivendefinitionofaParallelMediumSchoolas‘[o]nethatofferstwoormoremediaofinstructionindifferentclassesinthesamegrade,forallgradesoftheschool’isundulylimiting,intworespects.

�.

2.

3.

4.

ThissectionexaminesthelimitationsofofficialterminologyregardinglanguageinschoolsinSouthAfrica,beforeproposingalearner-centredtypologyanddefiningitskeyterms.Non-home-languagebasedmodelsareillustratedwiththehelpofexistingEMISinformation.

6. Limitations of current official definitions and typologiesThecurrentEMISdatabasesdocontainusefulinformationaboutthelanguagecompositionofaschool’slearnerpopulation,andabouttheschool’slanguagepolicy.Learnersarelistedperschoolbyhomelanguage,bylanguageoflearningandteaching(LoLT),andbylanguagesubjectstaken,pergradeand/orperphase.EMISalsohasinfor-mationabouttheschools’languageself-classifica-tioninLoLT(language-medium)termsthatwereinheritedfromtheapartheidera.Thesecomprisesingle-medium,dual-mediumandparallel-medi-umofinstruction.Allthisinformationissolicitedfromtheschoolsthemselvesinannualreturns.

However,aWesternCapestudyintodual-andparallel-mediumschoolsconductedin2002�7foundthattheEMISdatabasehadthreemainshortcom-ings:ithadnoappropriatetermforschoolsthatswitchfromoneLoLTtoanother(i.e.ex-DETpri-maryschools);itallowedforonlyonehomelanguageperlearner;andinregardtodual-mediumeducation,itfailedtoindicatethatlearnerswereexposedtotwoLoLTs.Theseshortcomingswereindicativeofanunfamiliaritywithinternationalresearchonbilingualeducationtypologies,andofthecritiqueofthemonolingualhabitusorcollectivemindset(Gogolin�997).

TheDepartment’srecentDictionary of education concepts and termsrepresentsanadvanceinsomere-spects,andseveralofthedefinitionswillhelpschoolsmakesenseofthelanguageissues.However,thereareafewgapsandalsosomeundulylimitingdefinitions.Onlythemostsalientwillbehighlightedhere.

�7Plüddemannetal2004

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 321� 1�Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

Itappearstoreferonlytosingle-LoLTstreamsandtoexcludethepossibilityoftwo-orbi-LoLTstreams.Anditalsoexcludesschoolsthatmayof-ferparallelclassesforsomebutnotallgrades,andschoolsthatmayhaveacombinationofparallel-streamanddual-mediumfeatures.Ineffect,itisadefinitionmadeonlyforstablebilingualschools,anddoesnotaccommodateschoolsintransitionfromoneLoLT(combination)toanother.

ThedefinitionofDualMediumofInstructionas‘[t]heuseoftwomediaofinstructionbyateacherinalesson,switchingfromonemediumtotheotherona50:50percentbasis’isundulylimitingintwosenses:(a)theconceptofdual-mediumislimitedtosynchronictime(onelessonatatime),i.e.thereisnoattempttodefineastreamorschoolindual-mediumterms;(b)thedefinitionislimitedtooneparticularinterpretationofdual-mediumeducation(theso-called50:50model),andexcludesotherdual-mediummodelswithproventrackrecords,suchas‘oneday,onelan-guage’or‘onesubject,onelanguage’orscaffoldeddual-medium(e.g.90:�0)�8.

Fundamentally,theinheritedlanguageclas-sificationofschoolsbyLoLTdoesnotfactorinlearners’homelanguages–anindispensableingredientinthelanguageprovisionofalearner-centrededucationthatisintheinterestsofpolicyrealisation.

7. Towards a learner-centred typologyForthereasonsoutlinedabove,anewlanguagetypol-ogyhasbecomenecessary.TheproposedtypologyisbasedontheexistingEMISdatabases,andwouldrequiretheDoEtoobtainrelativelylittleadditionalin-formationfromschools.Atpresentarrivingataschoollanguageprofileissomewhatlaborious,andrequirescombininginformationfromthreedifferentsources:

theschool’sLoLT(s),learnersbyhomelanguage,andlearnersbyLoLT.

Usingtheexistingmeasureofcross-tabulatingfigures,itispossibletoworkouthowmanylearnerspergradearebeingtaughtintheirhomelanguage(s)inaparticularschool.ButasyetwehavenoquickwayofclassifyingtheschoolintermsofthelearnerHL/LoLTmatch.Suchaclassificationisessentialifwe

�8SeeBusch(2006)foranoverviewofdual-mediumapproaches,andThomas&Collier(2002)fordetaileddescriptionsoftheseandotherbilingualmodelsintheUScontext.

5.

6.

•••

wanttomonitortheextentofhome-languagebasededucationinacontextofincreasingmultilingual-ity.ALoLTdescriptorsuchas‘parallel:Afrikaans/English’,forinstance,merelyindicatestheLoLTconfiguration,butdoesnotrevealwhetherornot(orwhatproportionof )learnersareexperiencinghome-language-basededucation.InseveralWesternCapeschools,theEnglishstreamwouldbemadeuplargelyofXhosa-speakinglearners.FailuretodescribesuchaschoolinwaysthatreflecttheessentialdisadvantagesufferedbyAfrican-languagespeakinglearnerswillsimplyperpetuateexistinginequalitiesandthe‘bimodaldistributionofachievement’inreadingandnumeracy(Fleisch2008).

Anumberofkeyassumptionsinformthistypol-ogy.Thefirstisthattypologiesarebothdescriptiveand(potentially)normative,reflectingnotonly‘whatis’butalso‘whatshouldbe’.Theyclassifynotonlyaccordingtoexistingframeworks,butintheirtermsofreferencecanalsoreflectacounter-hegemonicorientation.AsCumminssays,‘typologiescanserveausefulpurposeinhighlightingmajorissuesthatneedtobeaddressedinplanningandimplementingsuchprogrammes’(2003:5).Thesecondisthatitispossibleanddesirabletoascertainlearners’homelanguage(s)uponentrytoschool,withoutviolatingpolicy.ThethirdisthatitisnecessarytoredefinewhataLoLTis,asthereisnounanimityonthematteramongstschoolswhichuseanAfricanlanguageforteaching.Finally,despiteitsessentiallyvoluntarycharacter,thelanguage-in-educationpolicythatadvocatesadditivebi-/multilingualismissettoberealised,particularlyintheCapeCorridorandpossiblyfurtherafield;thetypology,itishoped,wouldenablethisprocesstobebettersupported.What is being proposed is a set of terms that, based largely on existing EMIS databases, would provide a more efficient way of identifying typical schools by taking into account the degree of match between learner home language (HL) and LoLT.

Manylanguageprogrammetypologiesofschoolsexist,andseveralhavebeenputforwardinthepasttwodecades.Alternativestothestate’sclassificationofschoolsweredevelopedbylanguageactivistsaspartofthestrugglefornationalliberationinthelatteryearsofapartheid.ThepioneeringworkoftheNationalLanguageProjectfromthemid-�980sanditsoffshootslookedbeyondtheexclusionaryAfrikaans/EnglishpairingtowardademocraticsocietyinwhichAfricanlanguageswouldcomeintotheirown,multilingualismwouldempowerpeople(Alexander�995),Englishwouldbetheinitiallinkinglanguage(seeAlexander�989),andeducationwouldbebasedonthemothertongue(Alexander2006).ItpavedthewayfortypologiesbyNEPI(�992),whichwascloselyalignedtothe

AfricanNationalCongress;byHeugh(�995);andmorerecentlybyAlidouetal.(2006:5),elaboratedinHeugh2006.

TheNEPIschemaiscomprehensiveinthatitcoversallcategories,notonlythoseregardedasadditivebilingual.Itdistinguishesbetweenthreebroadtypes:thoseinwhichthemainlanguageofteachingisanon-indigenouslanguage(s),viz.immersion,delayedimmersion,andsubmersion;modelsinwhichthemainLoTisanindigenouslanguage,viz.learners’homelanguageoralinguafranca;andmodelsthatusebothanindigenousandanon-indigenouslanguage,suchasgradualtransitionmodels,andmoreflexiblemultilingualmodels(�992:47–58).Thelattertwooptionscontaintheseedsofsomeofthebi-LoLTmodelsproposedbelow.

Heugh’s(�995)typologyofbi-/multilingualeduca-tionalmodelslinkssocialpolicy,language-in-educationpolicy,andeducationaloutcomes,anddistinguishesbetweenadditiveandsubtractive/transitionalbilingualmodelswithinthreeorientationstolanguage:languageasaproblem,asaright,andasaresource,respectively.Itisahighlydevelopedandtheoreticallycoherentclassificationsystem,andhasinspiredthegoalssectionofthedefinitionofhome-languagebasedbilingualeducation(seesection�0,below).

TheAlidouetal2006&Heugh2006typologyidentifiesonly‘additivebilingual’or‘strongbilingualmodels’,namely(�)‘home-language[mother-tongueeducation]throughout’schooling,withgoodsec-ond-languageteaching(2)‘additivebilingualeduca-tion’,meaningMTEwithgoodsecond-languageteachingtoGrade6or8,followedbydual-mediumeducation,and(3)‘verylate-exittransitiontoL2’,meaningMTEwithgoodsecond-languageteachingtoGrade8,followedbysecond-languageteach-ingfromGrade9.Despiteaminorterminologicalinconsistency–‘additivebilingual’isusedtorefertoboththeoverarchingcategoryaswellastooneofthethreesub-categorieswithinit–theclassificationformsausefulpointofdepartureforourproposedtypology.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatallthreeadditivebilingualmodelsassumeMTE(single-medium)forthedurationofprimaryschooling,withtheadditionallanguagelearntasasubject;thedifferenceinprogrammemodelstakeseffectonlyinsecondaryschool.

Together,thesetypologiesthusformanindispens-ablebackdroptothepresentdiscussion.

�. Proposed terms and typologyManyoftheproposedtypology’skeytermsusedarealreadyincirculation;severalhavealonghistory.Anyschoolconsistsofatleastonestream,whichisan

administrativetermtodescribetheLoLTarrange-mentviewedlongitudinally,i.e.acrossthetotalityofgradesoffered,withoutreferencetolearnersbyhomelanguage.Schoolscanhaveonestreamormultiplestreams.Asingle-stream schoolhasonlyonelanguagemodel,i.e.alllearnerswhoprogressthroughtheschoolfromtheentryyeartotheexityearwouldhaveexperiencedthesameLoLTarrange-ment.Aparallel-stream schoolhastwoormorelanguagemodels,foratleastonegradeoftheschool.Aparallelcohortembarkingonanewlanguagemodel,typicallyfromGrade�upwards,alsodefinesastream,evenwherethecohorthasnotyetreachedtheschool’sexityear.Sincealearnercanexperiencesingle-mediumanddual-mediumeducationbutcannotexperienceparallelmediaofinstruction,thetraditionaltermparallel-medium(education)be-comesoxymoronicandisreplacedbyparallel-stream(school).A language modelrepresentstheoverlayofaschool’s(stream’s)LoLTarrangementandthelanguageapproachexperiencedbyacohort,i.e.thecombinationofLoLTandlearnerHL.Wedistin-guishbetweenhome-languagebasedandnon-home-languagebasedmodels.

Theschool’slanguage approachisitsideologi-calcommitmenttothelearner’shomelanguage,measuredbythedurationoftheuseofthehomelanguageasaLoLT.Ahome-language based (HLb) approachisanorientationthatvaluestheHLasthemainvehicleforteachingandlearning,eithersinglyor(astheformativeLoLT)alongsidetheFAL-LoLT.Giventhemultilingualityofmanyschoolpopulations,itisnecessarytostipulateacut-offpoint,intermsoflearnerproportions,forwhatqualifiesashome-languagebased.Only schools in which at least 75% of learners in both the foundation phase and the intermediate phase are educated in their home language, and in which the HL-LoLT is used for at least 50% of curriculum time in Grades 1–6, qualify as home-language based.Asacorollary,anonHLbschoolisonethatdoesnotvaluetheHLasthemainvehicleforteachingandlearning.AnonHLbschoolisoneinwhichfewerthan75%oflearnersareeducatedinahomelanguageintheFPortheIP,and/orwheretheproportionofcurriculumtimeallocatedtotheHL-LoLTdropstobelow50%atanypointinGrades�–6.Inbi-LoLTmodels(seebelow),theHL-LoLTiscontrastedwiththeFAL-LoLT,whichreferstotheuseofthefirstadditionallanguage(FAL)forteachingandlearning,includingassessment.Inbi-LoLTmodelstheFAL-LoLTisusuallysupportiveoftheformativeHL-LoLT.

Inbasicterms,wedistinguishbetweeneightmodelsorcategoriesofschools.FourHLbcategoriesaremirroredbyfournonHLbcategories.


Approach Model/school type Full name Divides into

Home-Language

based (HLb)

1. single_HLb (HLE) Single-medium_home-language based 2 models

2. dual_HLb dual-medium_home-language based 9 models

3. late-transit Late-exit transitional bi-LoLT 9 models

4. parallel_HLb Parallel-stream_home-language based 6 models

Non Home-

Language based

(nonHLb)

5. immersion Single-medium_non-home-language based n/a

6. dual_nonHLb dual-medium_non-home-language based n/a

7.early-transit Early-exit transitional bi-LoLT n/a

8. parallel_nonHLb Parallel-stream_non-home-language based n/a

Table 1: Abridged language typology of schools, incorporating both HLb and nonHLb schools

Categories�–4arehome-languagebased(HLb),andthereforedesirableintermsofthelanguage-in-educationpolicy.Theyaresingle_HLb,late-transit,dual_HLb,andparallel_HLb.Categories5–8arenonHLbandnotinkeepingwiththeadditivebi/multilingualspiritofthepolicy.They compriseimmersion(single_nonHLb),dual_nonHLb,early-transit,andparallel_nonHLb.Thetaskfortheeducationsystemistoenableschools(particularlythoseincategories5–8)thatwanttochange,todoso;andtoraiseawarenessoftheneedforchangeamongsttheunconscientised.Themajorchallengewillbetosupportearly-transitschoolsintobecominglate-transitschools.AsecondarychallengerelatestoamelioratingtheHL-LoLTmismatchinimmersionandinparal-lel_nonHLbschools.Beginningwithreclassifyingexistinginformation,EMISdatabasescouldplayamoreenablingroleinthequestforlanguagepolicyrealisationinschools.

�. Non-Home-Language-based modelsAsindicated,thenonHLBapproachisrealisedinimmersion,dual_nonHLb,early-transit,andparal-lel_nonHLbmodels.Eachoftheseisbrieflydis-cussedandillustratedwiththehelpofanexample,below.

Immersion (cat.5):single-medium_nonHLbschoolthathasoneandthesameLoLTforalllearnersinallgrades,andwheretheLoLTistheHLoffewerthan75%oflearnersintheFoundationand/orIntermediatePhases,and/orisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeinGrades�–6.IftheHLisnottaughtasasubject,itbecomesasubmersionschool.

English LoLT

Phase HL AfrHL

EngHL

XhoHL oth

% HLb

FP 7 25 262 29 7.7

IP 13 20 208 15 7.8

SP 2 8 79 3 8.7

Table 2. Single-medium_nonHLb school (School A, 2005)

Manystraight-for-Englishschoolsthathaveunder-gonerapiddemographicchangequalifyinthiscat-egory.Teachersoftencannotspeakthelearners’homelanguages.InanextremecasesuchasthatofSchoolAinCapeTown’ssouthernsuburbs(Table2),thedegreeofmismatchbetweenlearnerHLandLoLTisalmosttotal.Thiscategoryalsoincludessituationsoflinguisticcomplexity,asinGauteng.Otherschoolsareexperiencingdemographicchangemoreslowly.

Afrikaans LoLTPhase HL Afr HL Xho HL oth % HLb

FP 74 23 1 75.5

IP 72 21 6 72.7

SP 37 8 1 80.4

Table 3. Single-medium_nonHLb school (School b, 2007)

SchoolB(Table3),aformerlyAfrikaans-onlyschool,isnowaborderlinenon-HLbschoolasaresultoftheenrolmentofXhosa-speakinglearnersandtheschool’sfailuretoprovideHLbeducationforthem.In2007justover75%oflearnersintheFoundationPhaseandjustunder73%ofIntermediatePhaselearnersexperiencedHLbeducation.EventhoughtheproportionoflearnersexperiencingHLbeduca-

tionexceeds75%fortheschoolasawhole,thetypology’slearner-centredfocusmeanstheques-tionofwhethertheschoolisHLbornothastobeansweredperphase.

Early-transit (cat.6):nonHLbsingle-streamschoolinwhichlearners’HLisusedasaLoLTforfewerthanthefirstsixcompulsorygrades,beforetheswitchtoanon-HLLoLT,typicallybyGrade4.ThetwoLoLTsarethususedconsecutively.InSchoolC(Table4),isiXhosaisreplacedbyEnglishasLoLTatthestartoftheIntermediatePhase(IP).Themajorityof(ex-DET)primaryschoolsinthecountryswitchtoEnglishinGrade4(Wits-EPU2009).

PhaseEnglish isiXhosa % HL

LoLTHL LoLT HL LoLT

FP 1 2 544 544 100.0

IP 5 504 509 11 3.1

SP 0 137 135 3 2.2

Table �. Early-transit school (School C, 2005)

Dual_nonHLb(cat.7):nonHLbsingle-streamschoolinwhichlearnersinatleastoneclassexperi-encethecurriculumthroughtwoconcurrentLoLTs,butinwhichfewerthan75%oflearnersintheIPandFParetaughtintheirHL(s),and/ortheHL-LoLTisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeatanypointinGrades�–6.AfewcasesofthistypeofschoolarefoundontheCapeFlatsinasituationofrapidlanguageshiftfromAfrikaanstoEnglish,combinedwiththe‘English-seeking’phenomenonmentionedearlier.Typically,asmallAfrikaanssingle-mediumschoolwithoneclasspergradeadmitsGrade�Xhosa-speakingchildrenwhoseparentsinsist(inemulationoftheelites,bothblackandwhite)onEnglish-mediumschoolingbecauseitisseenasthebest(only)guaranteeofaqualityeducation.Forfearofadropintheroll,andtheconsequentthreatoflosingteachingposts,theschooladmitstheseEnglish-seekinglearners,whoareabsorbedintotheAfrikaansmainstream.TeachersareforcedtousesomeEnglishinclass,andifthiscodeswitchingpracticeisaccompaniedbytheavailabilityoftextbooksinEnglishandthepossibilityofdoingassessmentinEnglish,learnersinthoseclassesareineffectexposedtodual-me-diumeducationbydefault.Ifthephenomenonrepeatsitselfoverthenext2–3yearsandthenumberofXhosa-speakinglearnersgrowsinrelationtoAfrikaans-speakers,theschool’sAfrikaans-mediumclassineachsuccessivegradeisgraduallyreplacedbyadual-mediumclass,whichinturniseventuallyreplacedbyanEnglish-mediumclass.Oncemore

than25%oflearnersintheFPand/ortheIParenotschooledintheirHL,theschoolasawholeisdefinedasdual-medium_nonHLb.Beingdoublyimmersedintwonon-HLLoLTsrepresentstheworstofbothworldsforXhosa-speakinglearners,particularlyiftheyarealsodeniedaccesstotheirHLassubject(submersion).Inourhypotheticalexample(Table5),theschooloffersthreedifferentLoLTarrangementsandhasaquasiparallel-streamcharacter.Butbecausethereisonlyoneclasspergrade,itcannotbetermedaparallel-streamschool.ShouldanEnglish-mediumclassbeestablishedalongsideanAfrikaans-ordual-mediumclassinthesamegrade,theschoolwouldbecomeaparallel-streaminstitution(seebelow).

Phase Learners by HL LoLT(s) % HLb

FP Afr/Eng 24, Xho 96 Eng 25%

IPAfr72,Afr/Eng24,Xho 24

Afr&Eng 80%

SP Afr 36, Afr/Eng 4 Afr 90%

Table 5. Dual-medium_nonHLb school (hy-pothetical example). Note that some learners have two home languages (Afr & Eng)

Parallel_nonHLb(cat.8):nonHLbparallel-streamschoolthatofferstwoormorelanguagemodelsindifferentclassesinthesamegradeforatleastonegrade,providedthatfewerthan75%oflearnersinthefounda-tionand/orintermediatephasesinoneormoreofthestreamsexperienceaHL-basededucation,and/orwheretheHL-LoLTisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeatanypointinGrades�–6�9. Typically,theAfrikaansstreamwouldbeHLb,whiletheEnglishstreamwouldfrequentlybenonHLb.IntheWesternCape,themajor-ityofthoseenrolledintheEnglishstreamareveryoftenspeakersofisiXhosaorotherAfricanlanguages,asintheSchoolDexample(Table6).

Afr LoLT Eng LoLT

FP 98.0% HLb FP 5.3% HLb

IP 86.9% HLb IP 4.2% HLbSP 100% HLb SP 5.8% HLb

Table 6. Parallel-stream_nonHLb school (School D, 2007). Learners by HL (Grades R–6, N=668):Afrikaans299;English17;isiXhosa315;other27

�9Somelinguisticallycomplexparallel-streamschoolsmayneedtheirown(sub-)category,forexamplethoseinwhichasmallornewstreamisnon-HL-basedbuttheproportionoflearnersreceivingHLbEremainsabove75%fortheschoolasawhole.


Afrikaansphase

English

HL LoLT % HLb HL LoLT % HLb

467 420 100 FP 205 268 76.5

479 404 100 IP 122 219 55.7

140 126 100 SP 24 44 54.5

Table 7. Parallel-stream_nonHLb school (School E, 2007). Learners by HL (Grades R–6, N = 1311):Afrikaans946;English327;isiXhosa193;other7

Afr LoLT Eng LoLT Xho LoLT

FP 95% HLb FP 48% HLb FP 99% HLb

IP 95% HLb IP 30% HLb IP 33% HLb

SP 99% HLb SP 30% HLb SP

Table �. Parallel-stream_nonHLb school (School F, 2009 – approximate figures). Note that isiXhosa is offered as LoLT from Grades 1–4 only

Theschoolthushasasingle_HLbstreamparalleltoanimmersionstreamparalleltoanearly-transit(butaspirantlate-transit)stream,asituationthatcanberepresentedasfollows:

single_HLb (Afr) // single_nonHLb (Eng) // early-transit (Xho>Eng) where // denotes ‘parallel to’, and > denotes ‘early-transit’ (as opposed to >> for ‘late-transit’)

Itisanexampleofthetypeofnewschoolthatwecanexpecttoseemoreofinthefuture.No-onesaidthatmatchingmultilingualitywithmultilingualismwouldbeeasy!

TheSchoolEexample(Table7)showsthattheAfrikaansstreamisentirelyHLbbutthatintheEnglishstream,onlytheFPisHLb.TheIPisnon-HLbasaresultoftheschool’sinabilityorunwilling-nesstoprovidethegrowingnumberofXhosa-speak-erswithteachinginisiXhosa.

ThecomplexLoLTarrangementatthemultilin-gualSchoolF(Table8)reflectsthesocialdynamicsoflanguageinanewtownshipontheCapeFlats.Theschool,whichisoneoftheWCED’s�6pilotLTPschools,hasthreeparallelstreams,eachwithitsowncharacter.TheAfrikaansstreaminthiswork-ing-classcommunityisoverwhelminglyHLb,tes-timonytothestrongidentificationwithAfrikaans(Dyers2008)anditsestablishedcharacterasaLoLT.TheEnglishstreamismultilinguallycom-posedandnonHLb,withmorethanhalfofthoseenrolledinithavingeitherAfrikaansorisiXhosaasaHL–testimonytotheparentalaspirationforanEnglish-mediumeducation.TheisiXhosastreamisamirrorimageoftheAfrikaansstreamatFPlevel.IntheIP,however,onlytheGrade4classusesisiXhosaasaLoLT,largelyduetothenon-availabilityoftextbooksandotherlearningresourcesinisiXhosaacrossthecurriculum.

Part Three: HLbbE Models HLbBEisaformofschoolinginwhichminimally

75%oflearnersinboththefoundationandinter-mediatephasesaretaughtandassessedinahomelanguageforatleast50%ofcurriculumtimeineverygradeuptoatleasttheendofGrade6,providedthataFAListaughtasacompulsorysubjectfromtheschool’sentryyearwithaviewtoitsprobableuseasaLoLTatsomepointinthelearner’sschoolcareer.HLbBEcomprisesmaintenanceandlate-transitmodels,inbothsingle-streamandparallel-streamvariants.ThefourbasicHLbBEmodelsaresingle-medium_HLb,late-transit,dual-medium_HLb,andparallel-stream_HLb.

10.2 designing models: factors to considerInwhatfollowsthefocuswillbeontheformsofHLbBEratherthanonitsgoals,asthelatterareen-codedintheConstitutionandotherpiecesoflegisla-tion,notablythelanguage-in-educationpolicy(DoE�997)anditsprovincialcounterpartsintheWesternCapeandtheEasternCape.BeforelaunchingintotheHLbmodels,itisworthconsideringwhatfactorsshouldbeconsideredindesigningaviablemodel.AgoodHLbmodelwillemergefromthesocio-educa-tionalcontextinwhichtheschoolcommunityfindsitself,andcannotbedecidedinavacuum.Factorsthatwillinfluencetheschool’slanguagepolicyinclude,amongstothers

thelinguisticmarketandthepoliticsoflanguagelearners’homelanguage(s)andlanguagebiographiesteachers’languagerepertoiresandsubjectcompetenceavailabilityoftextbooksandteachers’guidesintherelevantlanguagesdepartmentalsupport–curriculumdocuments,circulars,record-keepingdocuments,workshopsandcourses,etc–intherelevantlanguagesparents’languageattitudesextentoftheschoolleadership’slanguageawareness

••

•

•

•

••

ThefocusinthissectionisonHLbBEmodelsthathavebeendesigned,ratherthanthosethatarisebydefault.ThisisbecausethelinguisticandothergoalsofHLbBEarebestrealizedthroughplannedorstructuredmodels,ratherthanviaadhocorunstructuredonesthatsimplyfollowthepathofleastresistance.Nevertheless,inrealitymanyschoolsfindthemselvesinsituationsdeterminedbyfactorslargelyoutsidetheircontrol,andareforcedtocomeupwithadhocmodels.TheseunstructuredmodelsarebestviewedasastageenroutetostructuredorplannedHLbmodels,andwillbediscussedonlywhererelevant.

10. Overview of home-language based modelsInlinewithlocalandinternationalconvention,amodeltakesitsnamefromthelanguage(s)usedforteachingandassessmentinthecontentsubjects.SeeTable�0,overleaf.

10.1HLbBE:adefinitionThedefinitionof home-language-based bilingual education(HLbBE)hasagoalscomponentandaformscomponent.

HLbBEhasthesocio-cultural goalofconsolidat-ingthecoreofthechild’sidentity;thelinguistic goal ofdevelopingcompetenceinahomelanguageandatleastoneadditionalofficiallanguage,bothorally(bilingualism)andinwriting(biliteracy),aswellasconversationalfluencyinathird;theeducational goaloflayingthefoundationforallotherlearningbydevelopingcompetencetousetwolanguagesforlearning;thecivic goalofpro-motingamultilingualcitizenshipinalllearners,therebycontributingtothestruggleagainstracism,ethnocentrismandxenophobia;thepolitical goalofcultivatingmarginalisedofficiallanguages,andtherebyempoweringtheirHLspeakers;andtheeconomic goalofachievinggreaterefficiencyintheeducationsystem,incost-benefitterms,andinenablingparticipationin,andthetransformationof,linguisticmarkets.


Leve

l 1Le

vel 2

Leve

l 3Le

vel 4

Leve

l 5Le

vel 6

Level7

Leve

l 8Le

vel 9

App

roac

hN

o. o

f

stre

ams

HL-

LoLT

d

urat

ion

No.

of

LoLT

sM

odel

/Sch

ool

type

FAL-

LoLT

LoLT

allo

catio

nM

odel

/sch

ool

nam

e (a

bbr.)

man

ner

of o

nset

star

ting

poin

tHome-Language-based bilingual Education

Sin

gle-

stre

am

Mai

nten

ance

mon

o-Lo

LT1.

SIN

GLE

_HLb

(H

LE)

n/a

n/a

n/a

HLE

-1

HLE

-2

bi-

2.

dU

AL_

HLb

Abr

upt/

50:5

0

Initi

al

sepa

ratio

nd

ual-

1

inte

grat

ion

dua

l-2

mix

edd

ual-

3

del

ayed

sepa

ratio

nd

ual-

4

inte

grat

ion

dua

l-5

Gra

dual

Initi

alse

para

tion

dua

l-6

mix

edDual-7

del

ayed

sepa

ratio

nd

ual-

8

mix

edd

ual-

9

Tran

sitio

nal_

HLb

LoLT

3.

LATE

-TRAN

SIT

Abr

upt/

50:5

0

Initi

al

sepa

ratio

nLa

te-t

rans

it-1

inte

grat

ion

Late

-tra

nsit-

2

mix

edLa

te-t

rans

it-3

del

ayed

sepa

ratio

nLa

te-t

rans

it-4

inte

grat

ion

Late

-tra

nsit-

5

Gra

dual

Initi

al

sepa

ratio

nLa

te-t

rans

it-6

mix

edLate-transit-7

del

ayed

sepa

ratio

nLa

te-t

rans

it-8

mix

edLa

te-t

rans

it-9

Mul

ti-st

ream

Mai

nten

ance

4.

PARALL

EL

Type

MH

LE//

HLE

Para

llel-

1H

LE//

dual

Para

llel-

2d

ual/

/dua

lPa

ralle

l-3

Tran

sitio

nal_

HLb

-str

eam

_HLb

Type

TLa

te-t

rans

it//H

LEPa

ralle

l-4

Late

-tra

nsit/

/dua

lPa

ralle

l-5

Late

-tra

nsit/

/lat

e-tr

ansi

tPa

ralle

l-6

Tab

le 1

0.

Ove

rvie

w o

f H

Lbb

E m

od

els

theweightoftheschool’sinheritedortraditionallanguagepolicy.

Itisonlybyconsideringallofthesefactorstogetherthataviablemodelwillemerge.Thepointaboutdeterminingleaners’homelanguage(s)andlanguagebiographiesaspartoftheschool’slanguagepolicyprocess(Braam2008)istakenupagainintheconclu-sion,below.

10.3 The curriculum connectionTheillustrativeexamplesthatfollowusethenewsubjectdivisionandweeklytimeallocationasproposedfor20��onwardsbytheReportoftheTaskTeamfortheReviewoftheImplementationoftheNational Curriculum Statement (FinalReport,October2009).

Subject FP IP

Home Language 6 hrs 6 hrs

First Additional Language 5 hrs 5.5 hrs

Mathematics 5 hrs 6 hrs

General Studies: Creative Arts 2 hrs; Phys Ed 2 hrs; Health Ed 2 hrs (FP)/ Religious Ed 1 hr (IP)

6 hrs 5 hrs

Natural Science (incl. aspects of Technology)

– 2 hrs

Social Sciences – 2 hrs

Total hrs/week 22 hrs 26.5 hrs

Table 11: Proposed new subjects with weekly time allocations, according to the NCS Review Report

TheReviewproposesanincreasefromthecur-rentthreelearningareastofoursubjectsintheFoundationPhase(FP,toGrade3),withclearweeklytimeallocations(seeTable��).TheheavyemphasisonEnglishisreflectedinthefactthattheFirstAdditionalLanguage(FAL)isnowasubject

• untoitself,andisgivenalmostasmanyhoursasHomeLanguage(HL)fromthewordgo.IntheIntermediatePhase(Grades4–6),thenumberofsubjectsisreducedfromeighttosixsoastomakethetransitionfromtheFPlessproblematic.WhetherGeneralStudiesisindeedonesubjectwiththreecomponents,orwhetheritwillbetreatedasthreeseparatesubjects,remainstobeseen.Thelanguagesubjectshavebeenincludedintheexamplesbelowinordertopresentamoreholisticpictureoflanguageexposure,fromateaching-learningperspective.Itisclearlyintheinterestsofhorizontallyintegratedteachingandlearningthatlinksareactivelyforgedbetweenlanguageandcontentsubjects.

Thereare26HLbBEmodelsintotal.Eachofthe26isbrieflyexplainedandillustrated.

11. Single_HLbInprinciplethereisonlyonesingle-medium_HLbmodel.Inpracticeitmaybeusefultodistinguishbetweentraditionalsingle-mediumprimaryschoolsthatgouptoGrade7,andthose(combined)schoolsthatgouptoGrade9.Single-mediumschoolinginBantulanguagestoGrade9appearstobesomeyearsoff,however,andhasfar-reachingsystemicimplica-tionsthatcannotbedealtwithhere.

HLE 1 (home-language education_type 1)

HLE 2 (home-language education_type 2)

DefinitionAsingle-medium_HLborHLE (home-language education) schoolusesoneandthesameLoLTforalllearnersinallgradesofthatschool,providedthattheLoLTistheHLofatleast75%oflearnersinboththeFoundationandIntermediatePhases.WedistinguishbetweentwoHLEtypes.HLEType�isasingle_HLbschoolinwhichaBantulanguageisusedastheonlyLoLTforalllearn-ersineverygradeoftheschool.HLEType2isasingle_HLbschoolinwhicheitherAfrikaansorEnglishistheonlyLoLTforalllearnersineverygradeoftheschool.ThereasonforthedistinctionisthatType�schoolswillinitiallyrequirehigherlevelsoftrainingandsupport,asBantulanguageshavenotbeenprofiledandresourcedtothesameextentasAfrikaansandEnglish.Thisneedwillmakeitselffeltincoursesforteachers,thesourcingofliterature,textbooks,software,environmentalprintandotherresourcesforlearningintherelevantAfricanlanguage,andongoingadvocacyamongstparents(astherewillbesceptics,evenamongstschoolcommunitiesthatcommittoHLEtype�).

•

•


HLE 1 & 2 Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject

sHL HL HL HL HL HL

6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs

FAL FAL FAL FAL FAL FAL

5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5.5 hrs 5.5 hrs 5.5 hrs

SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s

Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Key

5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs HL

FAL

GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud SAL

6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs

NS 2 hrs NS 2 hrs NS 2 hrs

SS 2 hrs SS 2 hrs SS 2 hrs

Figure 1: Illustrative HLE model

Successful examplesHome-LanguageEducation(HLE),otherwiseknownasmother-tongueeducation(MTE),isthemostcommonformofeducationworldwide(exceptinsub-SaharanAfricaduetocolonisation),andhasstoodthetestoftime.InSouthAfricasuccessfulexamplesareAfrikaanssingle-mediuminstitutionsinwhichalloralmostalllearnersspeakAfrikaansathome,andsomeEnglish-mediumschoolsinwhichthevastmajorityoflearnershaveEnglishasahomelanguage.SuchschoolinghasproducedgenerationsofbilingualSouthAfricans.MTEforAfrican-languagespeakingprimaryschoolersinthefirstphaseofBantuEducation(�953–�975),whilebasedonasoundpedagogicalprinciple,cannotbesaidtobeasuccess-fulexample–becauseofthepoliticalbaggageandinferiorresourcingassociatedwithit.

RequirementsAstheexampleofAfrikaans-mediumschoolinghasshown,HLErequiresfirstandforemostapositiveattitudefromthegrassrootstowardsthemaintenanceoftheHLaswellasabeliefintheeconomicvalueofbeinghighlyliterateinthelanguage.Technically,HLErequires

teacherswhoareproficientandliterateinthelanguagetextbooks,otherLTSMsandteachers’guidesinthelanguagecurriculumandotherdepartmentaldocuments

•

•

•

thathelpteacherskeeprecordsandunderstandpolicy,inthelanguageassessmentexemplars,testsandexams(internalandexternal)inthelanguageteachertrainingandsupportinthelanguage,etc.

InviewoftheprominenceandstatusofEnglishto-day,theteacherofEnglish(asaFALsubject)wouldpreferablybearecognizedESLspecialist.

EvenamongstlargelyunilingualBantu-languagespeakingschoolcommunitiestoday,HLEisprobablynotaviableoptionatpresent.ThemainreasonisthatlanguagessuchasisiXhosaandSesotholack‘clout’politicallyandeconomicallyandinhighereducation,makingthechoiceofHLEanunattractiveoptionforparents.EvenifqualitytextbookswereavailableintherelevantlanguagesuptoGrade7,therebyremov-ingamajorobstacletotheimplementationofHLE,parentsarelikelytoinsistonatleastsomeLoLT-useofEnglishinthelaterprimaryyears.

Pros and consIfproperlysupported,single-HLbhasamajoradvantageoverthecurrentearly-transitmodel.Itwouldstandagoodchanceofpromotingcognitivelinguisticgrowthinthelargestnumberofpupilsbyimmediatelyremovingakeybarriertolearning.However,therewouldcurrentlybelittleornosupportfromprovincialeducationdepartments,thepublish-ingindustry,orparentsforamovetoextendHLE

•

•

toGrade7withimmediateeffect(20��).However,shouldversionsoflate-transitmodelsbeshowntobesuccessfulinthenext2–3years,thiscouldcreateafavourableclimatefortheextensionoftheHLasLoLTtoGrade7orevenGrade9–butprobablyinadual-mediumcombinationwithEnglish,ratherthanassingle_HLb,giventhedominanceofEnglishatsecondaryschoollevelandbeyond.

12. bi-LoLT models: late-transit & dual-mediumSingle-streamHLbmodelsinwhichlearnersareexposedtotwoLoLTs,whetherconsecutivelyand/orconcurrently,arereferredtocollectivelyasbi-LoLTmodels.Bi-LoLTmodelsarefoundinthemain-tenanceandthetransitional_HLbcategories,andcomprisedual_HLbandlate-transitmodels.Thetermbi-LoLTispreferredtobilingual,as‘bilingual’alsoincludessingle-medium(orsingle-LoLT)modelsdesignedtopromotehighlevelsofbilingual-ism,asdiscussedabove.Inbi-LoLTmodelslearnersexperiencesomeoralloftheirprimaryeducationthroughthemediumoftwoLoLTs,providedthattheHL-LoLT(ofatleast75%oflearners)isusedthroughGrade6.

Adual_HLb school(cat.2)isasingle-streamHLbmodelinwhichlearnersareexposedtotheconcurrent20useoftwoLoLTsforatleasttheschool’sexityear(inmostcasesGrade7),usuallyafteraninitialHLstage.Instructureddual-mediummodels,the(formative)LoLTistheHLofatleast75%oflearnersinboththeFPandtheIP,andtheHL-LoLTisusedfornolessthan50%ofcurricu-lumtimethroughGrade6.ThereisthusnoexitoftheHL-LoLT.Varioussub-typesofdual_HLbexist,dependingonwhentheFAL-LoLTisintroduced(yearofonset),to what extentitisfirstintroduced(abruptlyorincrementally),andhowitisusedalongsidetheHL-LoLT(LoLTallocationprinciple,i.e.byLoLTseparation,byLoLTintegration,orbyamixedapproach).

Inunstructureddual-medium_HLbmodels,dual-mediumclassesoftenrepresentanimprovisa-tionratherthanaprinciple.Unstructureddual-me-diumclassestypicallyoccurinsituationsofbi-ormultilingualitywherethesmallnumbersoflearnersfromeitherorbothhome-languagebackgroundsdonotwarrantseparateclassesinthesamegrade,orwhereafewparentsinsistonimmersioninaLoLTthatisnotyetofferedseparately.LearnersareexposedtotheuseoftwoLoLTs,butthegoal

20Concurrenthereistakentomeaninthesameyear/grade,notnecessarilyinthesameclassorsubject.

ofthissub-typeisnotnecessarilybiliteracyacrossthecurriculum,asthearrangementisoften,atbest,acompromiseonMTE(HLE).Inwell-resourcedcontextslearnershavetextbookswrittenintheirhomelanguage,andareexpectedtotakenotesanddoassessmenttasksintheirHL,whileteachersimprovisewithvariouscodeswitchingstrategies,usuallywithoutanypriortrainingandwithverylittleclassroomsupport.Insituationsofsevere‘languagemismatch’,afewlearnersmaybe‘sub-merged’intheFAL-LoLTwithoutanyrecoursetotheirHL.Wheretheproportionoflearners‘submerged’inthiswayislessthan25%intheFPortheIP,theschoolremainsdual_HLb.

Alate-transit(cat.3)schoolisasingle-streamHLbmodelinwhichtheHLofatleast75%oflearnersisusedasa(formative)LoLTthrough2�Grade6,beforebeingdiscontinuedasLoLTfromGrade7infavouroftheFAL-LoLT.Varioussub-typesoflate-transit_HLbexist,dependingonwhentheFAL-LoLTisintroduced(yearofonset),to what extentitisfirstintroduced(abruptlyorincremen-tally),andhowitisusedalongsidetheHL-LoLT(LoLTallocationprinciple,i.e.byLoLTseparation,byLoLTintegration,orbyamixedapproach).

BecausetheydifferonlyinthedurationoftheHL-LoLT,dual-mediumandlate-transitmodelswillinitiallybegroupedtogetherundermoremeaningfulheadingsthanmodeltype.Thebasicdistinctionhereisbetweenabrupt/50:50modelsandgradual/incre-mentalmodels.

Abriefexplanationofthepairingofformative and supportive LoLTsisrelevanthere22.Aforma-tiveLoLTisoneinwhichconcepts,contentandskillsaretaughtandlearntinitially,i.e.formedinthelearner’smind,usuallyviathehomelanguage.TheformativeLoLTisthustheprimaryvehicleforcognitive/academiclinguisticgrowth.ItisusuallygivenmorecurriculumtimethanthesupportiveLoLT,particularlyintheinitialyearsofabi-LoLTprogramme.ThesupportiveLoLTisusuallytheFAL,whichinitiallyfunctionstoillustrateorprovideexamplesoftheconcepts,contentorskillslearntthroughtheHL,andisgraduallystrength-enedtobecometheformativeLoLTinbi-LoLTprogrammes.ThetermsformativeandsupportiveLoLTsapplyparticularlytointegratedbilinguallearning,butcanalsobeusedinLoLTseparationmodels.

Atlevel8thebi-LoLTmodelsaredividedaccordingtoLoLTallocation,thepedagogicprinciplebywhichtherolesandfunctionsof

2�AsinbilingualeducationintheUSA,‘throughGrade6’istakentomean‘uptoandincludingGrade6’.

22SeealsoGough’s(�994)useoftheseterms


LoLTsinbi-LoLTmodelsareallocated.TherearethreewaysofallocatingLoLTs:byLoLTseparation,byLoLTintegration,andbyacom-binationofthetwo,i.e.amixedapproach.LoLT separation23iswhendifferentLoLTsareusedfordifferentsubjects(orthemesorcomponentswithinthesamesubject),orbydifferentteach-ers,oratdifferenttimeswithinthesamegrade.ThetwoLoLTsarenotusedinthesamelesson;codeswitchingisthereforeavoided.ForpresentpurposesthefocuswillbeonLoLTseparationbysubjectmatteronly.

InLoLT integrationthetwoLoLTsareusedinthesamelesson,althoughnotnecessarilyinequalproportionsorforthesamefunctions.Codeswitchingandcodemixingarepermitted,providedthatbothlanguagesareusedsystemati-callyforteaching,learningandassessmentandunduerepetitionisavoided.ThisimpliesthatbothLoLTsareusedorallyandinwritinginLoLT-integratedsubjects.Twoimportantprac-ticesinLoLTintegrationare(i)thatallformsofassessment(incontentsubjects)aremadeavailablebilingually,and(ii)thatassessmenttaskscanbeansweredineitherLoLT,and/orusingcodemixingandcodeswitching.

Accordingly, LoLT separation & integration combined representsa mixedLoLTallocationapproachinbi-LoLTmodelsthatrecognisesthecomplexityofmanybi/multilingualcontextsandtheexistenceofcode-mixedvarieties.Themodelsuggeststhatsomesubjectsarebesttaughtmonolinguallyandothersbilingually,whileyetothersmayundergoaLoLTchangeovertimeaslearnersbecomemoreproficientintheFAL-LoLT.

23SeeBaker200�:273ffforadiscussionoflanguageseparation.

12.1 Abrupt/50:50 bi-LoLT modelsAbrupt/50:50bi-LoLT modelsinvolvethefull-onormaximaluseoftheFAL-LoLTfromitsintroduc-tionorgradeofonset,asanequalpartneralongsidetheHL-LoLT,orassoleLoLTfromGrade7inthecaseofsomelate-transitvariants.

Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT.Abrupt/50:50bi-LoLTmodelsdifferfromeachotherinrelationtoFAL-LoLTstartingpoint,durationofHL-LoLTuse,and/orprincipleofLoLTallocation.WheretheHL-LoLTiscontinuedtotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-me-diummodel;discontinuationoftheHL-LoLTattheendofGrade6resultsinalate-transitmodel.

12.1.1 Abrupt_initial_separation: late-transit-1 & dual-1

Abrupt_initial_separationbi-LoLTmodelsinvolvethesuddenandfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,oneLoLT).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.WheretheHL-LoLTiscontinuedtotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel;discontinuationoftheHL-LoLTattheendofGrade6resultsinalate-transitmodel.Wethushave:

Late-transit-1 (abrupt_initial_separation)

Dual-1 (abrupt_initial_separation)

Intheillustrativeexamplesofthelate-transit-�(Figure2)anddual-�(Figure3)models,LoLTseparationisona50:50basisforeachofthefirstsixgradesandtotheschool’sexityear,respectively.TwosubjectsaretaughtthroughtheHL-LoLT(Maths,

•

•

FAL-LoLTLoLT allocation principle

HL-LoLT use ModelManner of onset Year of onset

ABRUPT/ 50:50

Initial

SeparationGr 1–6 through exit year

Late-transit-1 dual-medium-1

IntegrationGr 1–6 through exit year


MixedGr 1–6 through exit year


delayed

SeparationGr 1–6 through exit year


IntegrationGr 1–6 through exit year


Table 12: Overview of abrupt/50:50 bi-LoLT models

SocialScience)andtheothertwothroughtheFAL-LoLT(GeneralStudies,NaturalScience).Itshouldbenotedthateach50%referstocurriculumtime,nottothenumberofcontentsubjects–arelevantconsiderationwheresomesubjectsareallocatedmorehoursperweekthanothers.Inpractice,otherpermu-tationsoftheabrupt_separationmodelmightapply,

LT-1 Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject

s HL HL HL HL HL HL6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs

FAL FAL FAL FAL FAL FAL5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5.5 hrs 5.5 hrs 5.5 hrs

SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s

Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Key5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs HL

FALGenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud SAL6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs

NS 2 hrs NS 2 hrs NS 2 hrsSS 2 hrs SS 2 hrs SS 2 hrs

Figure 2: Illustrative example of a late-transit-1 model (abrupt_initial_separation)

Dual-1 Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 3: Illustrative example of a dual-1 model (abrupt_initial_separation)

forexampleifonlyoneortwoofthethreeGeneralStudiescomponentsaretaughtinEnglish.

TextbookswouldhavetobeintherespectiveLoLTforalllearners.Assessmenttasksandassign-mentswouldbesetunilingually,intherespectiveLoLT,andlearnerswouldbeexpectedtoanswerunilingually.Theapproachhastheadvantagethat

Late-transit-1 Subject Dual-1

Gr 1–6 All textbooks in HLMathematics

Gr1–7 All textbooks in HL

Gr7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr1–7 All textbooks in FAL General Studies Gr1–7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL Natural Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HLSocial Science



Table 13: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-1 and dual-1, respectively


notallteachersofcontentsubjectswouldneedtobebilingualandbiliterate.TheriskisthatthestrictseparationofLoLTsmaybeunimplementable,asthemajorityoflearnersinworking-classareaswouldbeunabletocopewithsubjectstaughtandassessedentirelyinEnglish,particularlyintheearlygrades.

12.1.2 Abrupt_initial_integration: late-transit-2 & dual-2

Abrupt_initial_integrationbi-LoLTmodelsarethoseinwhichallcontentsubjectsaretaughtbilingually,i.e.fromGrades�–6inthecaseoflate-transit-2,andthroughtotheschool’sexityearinthecaseofdual-2.ThereisnoproportionateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.InbothmodelstheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.Wethushave:

Late-transit-2 (abrupt_initial_integration)Dual-2 (abrupt_initial_integration)

Intheillustrativeexamplesofabrupt_initial_integra-tionmodels(Figures4&5),allsubjectsaretaughtbilingually–throughGrade6inthelate-transitvariant,andthroughGrade7inthedual-mediumvariant.WhatcouldnotbereflectedintheTableisthatinGrade�–3theHL-LoLTwouldbestronglyformative,withtheFALonlyweaklysupportive.InGrade4–6,theFAL-LoLTwouldbeusedtosupportlearningincreasingly,withaviewtotakingoverassoleLoLTinGrade7(late-transit-2)orbecom-ingtheformativeLoLTinoneorothersubjectinGrade7(dual-2).WhiletheconceptofLoLTisnotextendedtothelanguagesubjects,aLoLTintegrationmodelmight,incontextswhereEnglishismorelikeaforeignlanguage,benefitfromthebilingualteach-ingandlearningoftheFALitself,particularlyinthe

••


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s


FALGenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud SAL6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs biling



Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure �: Illustrative example of late-transit-2 model (abrupt_initial_integration)

Figure 5: Illustrative example of dual-2 model (abrupt_initial_integration)

earlyyears.OnlytheHLsubjectistaughtmonolin-guallythroughout.

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandex-planationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy)Inthebilingualsubjects,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.Theapproachhastheadvantageofbeingmore‘natural’inthatthebilingualintegratedmodewillbefamiliartomostteachersandlearnersintheoraldomain,andcodeswitching/mixingcodemix-

•

•

•

ingiscommon.Extendingitintowritingandassessmentwillhelpteacherstosystematiseitsuse,therebymaximisingitspotentialasalearningresource.Therearetworisks.Thefirstisthatteacherswillnotbeabletomonitortheirclassroomlanguageuseandwillheelovertowhicheverlanguagetheyfeelmorecomfortablewith,orwhichcar-riesmoreclout(probablyEnglish),therebyrisk-ingacontinuationofthestatusquo(andpoorlearnerperformance)andcompromisingthemodel.Thesecondisthatthesharingoftext-booksmightnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-operationandcommitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’–notjustinonesubject,butinallofthem.

•


Gr 1–6 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**

Mathematics Gr1–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**



General Studies Gr1–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**


Gr 4–6 Half in HL, half in FAL*or all textbooks in HL**

Natural Science Gr4–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**



Social Science Gr4–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**


* learners to pair off as ‘study buddies’ to ensure access to both language versions of the textbook** teacher to have both language versions and provide bilingual glossaries and explanations of key terms

Table 1�: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-2 and dual-2, respectively


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 6: Illustrative example of late-transit-3 model (abrupt_initial_mixed)


12.1.3 Abrupt_initial_mixed: late-transit-3 & dual-3

Abrupt_initial_mixedbi-LoLTmodelsarethoseinwhichsomecontentsubjectsareconsistentlytaughtmonolinguallyfromGrade�andothersareconsistentlytaughtbilinguallyfromGrade�.ThereisthusnochangeintheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTthroughGrade6(late-transit-3)andthroughtheschool’sexityear(dual-3),respectively.InbothmodelstheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.Wethushave:

Late-transit-3 (abrupt_initial_mixed)

Dual-3 (abrupt_initial_mixed)

Intheillustrativeexamplesofabrupt_initial_mixedmodels(Figures6and7),somesubjectsaretaught

•

•

Dual-3 Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Grade 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 7: Illustrative example of dual-3 model (abrupt_initial_mixed)

monolingually,i.e.theyfollowtheprincipleofLoLTseparation,whileothersaretaughtbilingually(LoLTintegration).SocialScienceandtwoofthethreestrandsofGeneralStudies(Health,religious&moraleducation;CreativeArts)aretaughtintheHL-LoLT,whilethethirdstrand(PhysicalEducation)istaughtintheFAL-LoLT–throughGrade6(late-transit-3)andthroughtheschool’sexityear(dual-3),respectively.Thetwobilingually-taughtsubjectsareMathsandNaturalScience,inwhichtheHLisformativewhiletheFALissupportive.Theabovemodellendsitselftomuchvariation,dependingonlocalconditions.

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguage

•



Mathematics Gr1–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**



General Studies Gr1–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**



Natural Science Gr4–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**


Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HL Social Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HLGr7 All textbooks in FAL



versionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexplanationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).Inthebilingualsubjects,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.Intheunilingualsub-jects,assessmentwouldbeunilingual.Theapproachhastheadvantageofbeingmore‘natural’inthatthebilingualintegratedmodewillbefamiliartomostteachersandlearnersintheoraldomain,andcodeswitching/mix-ingiscommon.Extendingitintowritingandassessmentwillhelpteacherstosystematiseitsuse,therebymaximisingitspotentialasalearningresource.AsecondadvantageisthattheEnglish-onlyapproachinthemostphysicalandlinguisticallyleastdemandingcomponentofGeneralStudieswillencouragerapidacquisi-tionofEnglish.Therearethreerisks.Thefirstisthatteacherswillnotbeabletomonitortheirclassroomlanguageuseinthebilingualintegratedsubjectsandwillheelovertowhicheverlanguagetheyfeelmorecomfortablewith,orcarriesmoreclout(probablyEnglish),therebyriskingacontinuationofthestatusquo(andpoorlearnerperformance)andcompromisingthemodel.Thesecondisthatthemodelmaybeconfusingtoadministerandsupport(fromtheoutside),asitiscomplex.Thethirdisthatthesharingoftextbooksmightnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-operationandcommitmentfrom

•

•

•

the‘studybuddies’–notjustinonesubject,butinmostofthem.

12.1.4 Abrupt_delayed_separation

Abrupt_delayed_separationbi-LoLTmodelsinvolvethedelayedfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4orlateralongsidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,onelanguage).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.WheretheHL-LoLTiscontinuedtotheschool’sexityear,itbecomesadual-mediummodel;dis-continuationoftheHL-LoLTattheendofGrade6resultsinalate-transitmodel.Therearetwovariantsofeach,dependingontheyearofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT.Inthedelayedvariant(4a),onsetoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtoGrade4;inthevery delayedvariant(4b),theuseoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtotheschool’sexityear(Grade7inmostcases).Wethushave:

Late-transit-4 (abrupt_delayed_separation)

Dual-4 (abrupt_delayed_separation)

Intheillustrativeexamplesofthedelayed50:50model(4a–seeFigures8&9),twosubjectsaretaughtintheHL-LoLTthroughout(Maths,SocialScience),GeneralStudiesistaughtfirstthroughtheHLandthen(fromGrade4)throughtheFAL,andNSistaughtintheFAL.Inthelate-transitvariant,theFAL-LoLTtakesovercompletelyfromtheHL-LoLTintheschool’sexityear(Grade7).Inthedualvariant,the50:50LoLTallocationcontinuesintoGrade7.

•

•

LT-�a Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure �: Illustrative example of a late-transit-�a model (LoLT separation from Grade �)


Late-transit-�a Subject Dual-�a

Gr 1–6 All textbooks in HL Mathematics Gr1–7 All textbooks in HL


Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL General Studies Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL

Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL Natural Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HL Social Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HL


Table 16: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-�a and dual-�b, respectively

Theapproachhastheadvantagethatnotallteach-ersofcontentsubjectswouldneedtobebilingualandbiliterate.TheriskisthatthestrictseparationofLoLTsmaybeunenforceable,asthemajorityoflearn-

•

•

Dual-�a Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure �: Illustrative example of a dual-�a model (LoLT separation from Grade �)

TextbookswouldhavetobeintherespectiveLoLTforalllearners.Assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetunilingually,intherespectiveLoLT,andlearnerswouldbeexpectedtoanswerunilingually.

•

•

LT-�b Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 10: Illustrative example of a late-transit-�b model (LoLT separation from Grade 7)

ersinworking-classareaswouldbeunabletocopewithNaturalSciencetaughtandassessedentirelyinEnglishfromGrade4.

Intheillustrativeexamplesofthevery delayed50:50model(4b),useoftheFAL-LoLTbeginsintheschool’sexityear(Grade7).Thelate-transit-4bvariant(Figure�0)hassingle-mediumfeaturesinthesensethattheHListhesoleLoLTthroughGrade6.Inthedual-4bvariant(Figure��),useoftheFAL-LoLTislimitedtohalfthecurriculumtimefromGrade7.Itshouldbenotedthateach50%referstocurriculumtime,nottothenumberofcontentsubjects–arelevantconsiderationwheresomesub-jectsareallocatedmorehoursperweekthanothers.Inpractice,otherpermutationsofthemodelmightapply,forexampleinthechoiceofLoLTallocationtoparticularsubjects.

Dual-�b Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 11: Illustrative example of a dual-�b model (LoLT separation from Grade 7)

Late-transit-�b Subject Dual-�b




Gr7 All textbooks in FAL Gr7 All textbooks in FAL

Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HL Natural Science Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HL




Table 17: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-�b and dual-�b, respectively

TextbookswouldhavetobeintherespectiveLoLTforalllearners.

Assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetunilingually,intherespectiveLoLT,andlearnerswouldbeexpectedtoanswerunilingually.

Theapproachhastheadvantagethatnotallteachersofcontentsubjectswouldneedtobebilingualandbiliterate,andthatthedelayintheintroductionofEnglishasLoLTwouldlayasolidplatformforcognitive/linguisticdevelopmentthroughtheHL-LoLT

TheriskisthatparentsmightobjecttothedelayeduseofEnglishasLoLT,therebyexertingpressureonthemodeltobecomea4avariant(seeabove).

•

•

•

•


Late-transit-5 (abrupt_delayed_integration)Dual-5 (abrupt_delayed_integration)

WhatcannotbereflectedinFigures�2and�3istheextenttowhichtheFAL-LoLTmaydevelopintoanincreasinglyformativeLoLTbyGrade6.

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexpla-nationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).Inthebilingualsubjects,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.Intheunilingualsub-jects,assessmentwouldbeunilingual.

••

•

•


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 12: Illustrative example of late-transit-5 model (abrupt_delayed_integration)

Dual-5a Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 13: Illustrative example of dual-5a model (abrupt_delayed_integration)

12.1.5 Abrupt_delayed_integration (late-transit-5 & dual-5)

TheLoLTintegrationmodelisdefinedbytheuseofbothLoLTsinthesamelesson.Abrupt_delayed_in-tegrationbi-LoLTmodelsarethoseinwhichtheon-setoftheFAL-LoLTispostponed,usuallytoGrade4,andallcontentsubjectsaretaughtbilinguallyfromthatpointonwardsi.e.totheendofGrade6inthecaseoflate-transit,andtotheendoftheschool’sexityearinthecaseofdual-medium.WherebilingualintegrateduseoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtotheschool’sexityear,wespeakofavery delayeddual-mediumvariant.ThereisnoproportionateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.InbothmodelstheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.Wethushave:

Theapproachhastheadvantageofbeingmore‘natural’inthatthebilingualintegratedmodefromGrade4upwillbefamiliartomostteachersandlearnersintheoraldomain,andcodeswitch-ing/mixingiscommon.Extendingitintowritingandassessmentwillhelpteacherstosystematiseitsuse,therebymaximisingitspotentialasalearningresource.AsecondadvantageisthattheLoLTallocationwithineachphase(FPandIP,respectively)isuniform,makingforeasierimple-mentationandrecord-keeping.

Thefirstriskisthatteacherswillnotbeabletomonitortheirclassroomlanguageuseinthebilingualintegratedsubjectsandwillheelover

•

•

toEnglish,therebyriskingacontinuationofthestatusquo(andpoorlearnerperformance)andcompromisingthemodel.Again,thereistheriskthatthesharingoftextbooksmightnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-operationandcom-mitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’.

Insomecontexts,asinFigure�4,itmaybeadvanta-geoustopostponetheonsetoftheFAL-LoLTtoGrade7andtointroduceitinbilingualintegratedformacrossallsubjectsinpreparationforthepre-sumedswitchtoEnglishinsecondaryschool.Thisistermedthevery delayedvariantofthedual-mediummodel(dual-5b).

Late-transit-5 Subject Dual-5a

Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL Mathe-matics

Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL


Gr4–7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**


Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL General Studies






Natural Science




Social Science




Table 1�: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-5 and dual-5b, respectively

Dual-5b Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 1�: Illustrative example of dual-5b model (abrupt_very delayed_integration)


InGrade7textbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexplanationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).InGrade7,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.InGrades�–6subjects,assessmentwouldbeunilin-gual,i.e.intheHL-LoLTthroughout.

•

•

ThecontinuationoftheHL-LoLTintoGrade7afterasix-yearHLEperiodmeansthiscomesveryclosetobeingaHLEmodel,withalltheadvantagesofsustainedHLuse.Themodelalsohastheadvantageofbeingeasytoadminister.Theriskispolitical:parentsmightobjecttothelackofEnglishuseinthefirstsixgrades.

12.2 Gradual bi-LoLT modelsGradual or incremental bi-LoLT modelsinvolvethephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTinasupportivecapacityfromitspointofonsetalongsidetheformativeHL-LoLT.OvertimetheFAL-LoLTisstrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLTtothepointwhereitbecomes,orcouldbecome,theformativeoreventhesoleLoLT.Asthepropor-tionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.Gradualbi-LoLTmodelsdifferfromeachotherinrelationtoFAL-LoLTstartingpoint,du-rationofHL-LoLTuse,and/orprincipleofLoLTallocation.WheretheHL-LoLTiscontinuedtotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel;discontinuationoftheHL-LoLTattheendofGrade6resultsinalate-transitmodel.

12.2.1 Gradual_initial_separation (late-transit-6 & dual-6)

Gradual_initial_separationbi-LoLTmodelsinvolvethephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLTfollowingtheLoLTseparationprinciple.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT.As

•

•

Manner of onset FAL-LoLT start LoLT allocation HL-LoLT use Model

Gradual

Initial

SeparationGr 1–6 Late-transit-6

through exit year dual-medium-6

MixedGr 1–6 Late-transit-7

through exit year Dual-medium-7

delayed

SeparationGr 1–6 Late-transit-8


MixedGr 1–6 Late-transit-9


Table 20: bi-LoLT HLb models (single-stream)

Subject Dual-5b

Mathematics Gr 1–6 All textbooks in HL

Gr7 Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**

General Studies



Natural Science



Social Science



* learners to pair off as ‘study buddies’ to ensure ac-cess to both language versions of the textbook

** teacher to have both language versions and provide bilingual glossaries and explanations of key terms

Table 1�: Required language versions of textbooks for above example of dual-5b

theproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdrop-pingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.IfconcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel.IfuseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6,itisalate-transitmodel.Wethushave:

Late-transit-6 (gradual_initial_separation)

Dual-6 (gradual_initial_separation)

Intheillustrativeexampleslate-trans-6(Figure�5)anddual-6(Figure�6)versions,theFAL-LoLTisintroducedincrementallyaccordingtotheLoLTseparationprinciple,beginninginGrade�withthePhysicalEducationstrandofGeneralStudies.InGrade4asecondstrand(CreativeArts)isadded.ByGrade6allthreestrandsaretaughtinEnglish,asisSocialScience.Thelate-transitvariantthusbeginslifeasan82:�8(roundedoffto80:20)ver-

•

•

sion,progressesto73:27(or70:30)inGrade4–5,andendswith53:47(roughly50:50)inGrade6beforethecompleteswitchtoEnglishinGrade7.Thedual-mediumversiondiffersonlyinthecon-tinuationoftheHL-LoLTforMathsandNaturalSciencethroughGrade7,atwhichpointthe50:50proportionsarereached.

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetext-book;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglos-sariesandexplanationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).Assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetunilingually(exceptperhapsinGeneralStudies),intherespectiveLoLT,andlearnerswouldbeexpectedtoanswer

•

•


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 15: Illustrative example of a late-transit-6 model (gradual_initial_separation)


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 16: Illustrative example of dual-6 model (gradual_initial_separation)

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 32�0 �1Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

unilingually(exceptperhapsinGeneralStudies)

Theapproachhastheadvantagethatnotallteachersofcontentsubjectswouldneedtobebilingualandbiliterate,andthatphaseduseofEnglish,initiallyvialessverbalsubjects,wouldmakeiteasierforchildrentolearnthelanguage

Theriskisthatthesharingoftextbookswouldnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-operationandcommitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’.

•

•

12.2.2 Gradual_initial_mixed: late-transit-7 & dual-7

Gradual_initial_mixed(GIS)bi-LoLTmodelsaredefinedbythephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegra-tion.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgradu-allystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.IfconcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel.IfuseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6,itisalate-transitmodel.




Gr 1–5Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**

General Studies Gr 1–5Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**


Gr 4–6 All textbooks in HL Natural Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HL








Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 17: Illustrative example of a late-transit-7 model (gradual_initial_mixed)

Wethushave:Late-transit-7 (gradual_initial_mixed)

Dual-7 (gradual_initial_mixed)

Inwhatfollowseachisbrieflyillustratedwiththehelpofahypotheticalexample.

Intheillustrativeexamples,thelate-trans-7(Figure�7)anddual-7(Figure�8)variantsareidenticaluptotheendofGrade6.TheFAL-LoLTisintroducedfromGrade�asasupportiveLoLTintheintegratedbilingualteachingofPhysicalEducation,oneofthethreestrandsofGeneralStudies.FromGrade3–6Mathsalsogetstaughtbilingually;andfromitsintroductioninGrade4,NaturalScienceissimilarlytaughtaccordingtotheLoLTintegrationprinciple.TheremainingtwostrandsofGeneralStudies(CreativeArts,Religious&moraleducation)aswellasSocialSciencearetaughtintheHL-LoLTtotheend

•

•

ofGrade6.Inthedual-mediummode,SocialScienceswitchestotheFAL-LoLTinGrade7(dual).

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexpla-nationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).

Inthebilingualsubjects,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.Intheunilingualsub-jects,assessmentwouldbeunilingual.

Theapproachhastheadvantageofbeingmore‘natural’inthatthebilingualintegratedmodewillbefamiliartomostteachersandlearnersintheoral

•

•

•


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 1�: Illustrative example of dual-7 model (gradual_initial_mixed)


Gr 1–2 All textbooks in HL Mathematics Gr 1–2 All textbooks in HL





General Studies Gr1–7Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**



Natural Science Gr1–7Half in HL, half in FAL* or all textbooks in HL**








domain,andcodeswitching/mixingiscommon.Extendingitintowritingandassessmentwillhelpteacherstosystematiseitsuse,therebymaximisingitspotentialasalearningresource.Phasinginthebilingualintegratedapproach(i.e.theuseoftheFAL-LoLT)inanincrementalmannerwillbeeasierforlearnerstodealwiththananabruptapproach.ThefirstriskisthatteacherswillnotbeabletomonitortheirclassroomlanguageuseinthebilingualintegratedsubjectsandwillheelovertoEnglish,therebyriskingacontinuationofthestatusquo(andpoorlearnerperformance)andcompromisingthemodel.Again,thereistheriskthatthesharingoftextbooksmightnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-opera-tionandcommitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’.Finally,themodeliscomplextoadminister.

•

12.2.3 Gradual_delayed_separation: late-transit-8 & dual-8

Gradual_delayed_separationbi-LoLTmodelsinvolvethedelayed,incrementalintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTinGrade4alongsidetheHL-LoLTaccordingtothelanguageseparationprinciple.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculum(content-subject)time.IfuseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6,itisalate-transitmodel.IfconcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel.Wethushave:

Late-transit-8 (gradual_delayed_separation)

Dual-8 (gradual_delayed_ separation)Inwhatfollowseachisbrieflyillustratedwiththehelpofahypotheticalexample.

•

•

LT-� Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 1�: Illustrative example of a late-transit-� model (gradual_delayed_separation)

Dual-� Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 20: Illustrative example of a dual-� model (gradual_delayed_separation)

Inourillustrativeexamples,thelate-trans-8(Figure�9)anddual-8(Figure20)modelsareidenticaltotheendofGrade6.BothcontentsubjectsinGrade�–3aretaughtintheHL-LoLT.TheFAL-LoLTisusedforoneofthethreeGeneralStudiesstrands(PhysicalEducation)inGrade4,andintwostrands(addingCreativeArts)inGrade5–6.TheFAL-LoLTisusedforNaturalSciencefromGrade4.TheproportionateuseofHL-LoLT:FAL-LoLTistherefore�00:0inGrade�–3,73:27inGrade4,and60:40inGrade5–6(bothmodels)and50:50inGrade7(dualmodelonly).

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook;oralltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexpla-nationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy).Assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetunilingually(exceptperhapsinGeneralStudies),intherespectiveLoLT,andlearnerswouldbeexpectedtoanswerunilingually(exceptperhapsinGeneralStudies)Theapproachhastheadvantagethatnotallteachersofcontentsubjectswouldneedtobebilingualandbiliterate,andthatthedelayedandstaggereduseofEnglish,initiallyvialessverbalsubjects,wouldmakeiteasierforchildrentolearnthelanguageTheriskisthatthesharingoftextbookswouldnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-opera-tionandcommitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’

•

•

•

•

12.2.4 Gradual_delayed_mixed: late-transit-9 & dual-9

Gradual_delayed_mixedbi-LoLTmodelsaredefinedbythephasedanddelayedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4alongsidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegra-tionapproaches.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgradu-allystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculumtimethroughGrade6.IfconcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear,itisadual-mediummodel.IfuseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6,itisalate-transitmodel.Wethushave:

Late-transit-9 (gradual_delayed_mixed)

Dual-9 (gradual_delayed_mixed) – variants 9a & 9b

Intheillustrativeexamples,thelate-trans-9(Figure2�)anddual-9a(Figure22)variantsareidenticaluptotheendofGrade6.AfteraninitialHLEstage(Grade�–3),theFAL-LoLTisintroducedasasupportiveLoLTintheintegratedbilingualteachingofMathsandoneofthethreestrandsofGeneralStudiesfromGrade4,andinNaturalSciencefromGrade5.TheremainingtwostrandsofGeneralStudiesaswellasSocialSciencearetaughtintheHL-LoLTtotheendofGrade6(late-transmodel).Inthedual-mediummodel,inGrade7MathsandonestrandofGeneralStudiesswitchtotheFAL-LoLT,NaturalSciencecontinuesinbilingualmode,

•

•

Late-transit-� Subject Dual-�

Gr 1–6 All textbooks in HLMathematics




General Studies





Gr4–7 All textbooks in FAL Natural Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HL





Table 23: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-� and dual-�, respectively

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 32�� 5Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

LT-� Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 21: Illustrative example of a late-transit-� model (gradual_delayed_mixed)

Dual-�a Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 22: Illustrative example of dual-�a model (gradual_delayed_mixed)

Late-transit-� Subject Dual-�aGr 1–3 All textbooks in HL Mathematics Gr 1–3 All textbooks in HL








Gr 4 All textbooks in HL Natural Science Gr 4 All textbooks in HLGr 5–6 Half in HL, half in FAL*

or all textbooks in HL**Gr5–7 Half in HL, half in FAL*

or all textbooks in HL**Gr7 All textbooks in FAL



* learners to pair off as ‘study buddies’ to ensure access to both language versions of the textbook


Table 2�: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-� and dual-�a, respectively

whileSocialScienceandtheothertwostrandsofGeneralStudiescontinueintheHL-LoLT.

Alltextbooksinbilingualsubjectstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook.Inthebilingualsubjects,assessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.Intheunilingualsub-jects,assessmentwouldbeunilingual.Theapproachhastheadvantageofbeingmore‘natural’inthatthebilingualintegratedmodewillbefamiliartomostteachersandlearnersintheoraldomain,andcodeswitching/mixingiscom-mon.Extendingitintowritingandassessmentwillhelpteacherstosystematiseitsuse,therebymaximisingitspotentialasalearningresource.Theslightlydelayedphasinginofthebilingualintegratedapproachwillmakeiteasierforlearnerstodealwiththananabruptapproach.Thefirstriskisthatteacherswillnotbeabletomonitortheirclassroomlanguageuseinthebilingualintegratedsubjectsandwillheelover

•

•

•

•

toEnglish,therebyriskingacontinuationofthestatusquo(andpoorlearnerperformance)andcompromisingthemodel.Again,thereistheriskthatthesharingoftextbooksmightnotworkout,particularlywhenitcomestotakingthemhome;itrequiresahighdegreeofco-operationandcommitmentfromthe‘studybuddies’.Finally,themodelisverycomplextoadminister,anddependsonalargemeasureofstabilityintheteachingcorps.Itisthetypeofmaturemodelthatmayeventuateafewyearsdowntheline.

Avery delayedincrementaldualmodelusingamixedapproachispossiblebypostponingtheonsetoftheFAL-LoLTtoGrade7.Intheillustrativeexample(Figure23),threeofthefourcontentsubjects(GeneralStudies,NaturalScienceandSocialScience)aretaughtinHL-LoLTthroughout,whileMathsswitchestoabilingualintegratedapproachinGrade7.Itis,ineffect,a50:50dualmodelwithsingle-me-diumfeatures.

InGrade7textbooksinMathstobesharedbylearnersin‘studybuddy’pairstoensureeachlearnerhasaccesstobothversionsofthetextbook,

•

Dual-�b Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 23: Illustrative example of a dual-�b model (gradual_very delayed_mixed)

Subject Dual-�a

MathematicsGr 1–6 All textbooks in HL


General Studies Gr1–7 All textbooks in HL

Natural Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HL

Social Science Gr4–7 All textbooks in HL

* learners to pair off as ‘study buddies’ to ensure access to both language versions of the textbook


Table 25: Textbook requirements for above examples of late-transit-�a and dual-�b, respectively


oralltextbookstobeintheHL,whiletheteacherhasaccesstobothlanguageversionsandprovidesbilingualglossariesandexplanationsofkeyterms(bilingualconceptliteracy)ExceptinGrade7Maths,assessmentwouldbeunilingual,i.e.intheHL-LoLTthroughout.InGrade7Mathsassessmenttasksandassignmentswouldbesetbilingually,andlearnerswouldhavetherighttoanswerineitherlanguageorinamixoflanguages.ThecontinuationoftheHL-LoLTintoGrade7afterasix-yearHLEperiodmeansthiscomesveryclosetobeingaHLEmodel,withalltheadvantagesofsustainedHLuse.Themodelalsohastheadvantageofbeingeasytoadminister.Theriskispolitical:parentsmightobjecttothelackofEnglishuseinthefirstsixgrades.

•

•

•

13. Parallel-stream_HLb modelsAparallel-streamschoolisclassifiedbyconsideringthecombinationofstreamsinconjunctionwiththedegreeoflearnerHL/LoLTmatchperstream.Wedistinguishbetweenmaintenance(typeM)andtran-sitional(typeT)versionsofparallel_HLbmodels.Asindicated,parallel-streamreplacesparallel-medium,whichisamisnomerbecauseitmisleadinglyimpliesthatlearnerscanexperiencethecurriculumthroughparallelmediaofinstruction(LoLTs).

13.1 Maintenance (Type M) modelsMaintenanceor type Mmodelsoccurwhereallthestreamsareeithersingle_HLbordual_HLb.Thethreepossiblecombinations,inthecaseofatwo-streamschool,are:HLE//HLE,HLE//dual,anddual//dual,wherethedoublevirgule(//)indicatesparallelstreams.

Par. 1: HLE Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 G 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s

Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Key5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs Afr

EngGenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud isiXhosa6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs


Figure 2�: Illustrative example of a parallel-1 (Afr//Eng) school, Afrikaans HLE stream (above) and English HLE stream (below)

Par. 1: HLE Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 G 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




13.1.1 Parallel-1 (HLE//HLE)Aparallel-�schoolhastwoormoresingle_HLbstreams.AtypicalexamplewouldbeaninstitutionwithparallelAfrikaans-mediumandEnglish-me-diumstreams,providedthatatleast75%oflearnersinboth(all)streamsareschooledthroughaHLatleastuptotheendofGrade6.

13.1.2 Parallel-2 (HLE//dual)

Aparallel-2schoolisacombinationofHLEanddual_HLbstreams.AnexampleofanHLE//dualschoolwouldbeonethathasanAfrikaansHLEstreamparalleltoaisiXhosa-Englishdual-mediumstreaminamultilingualperi-urbanenvironment.Unlessatleast75%oflearnersinbothstreamsare

Par. 2: HLE Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 25: Illustrative example of a parallel-2 (Afr//Xho&Eng) school, Afrikaans HLE stream (above) and isiXhosa&English dual-medium stream (below)

Par. 2: dual Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




schooledthroughaHLatleastuptotheendofGrade6,theschoolisnotanHLbinstitution,i.e.itbecomesanonHLbschool.

Intheexample,theisiXhosa-Englishdual-me-diumstreamfollowsthegradual(LoLTseparation)approachinwhich,afteraninitialHLEphase,EnglishisprogressivelyusedasaLoLTacrossthecurriculum.HadtheuseofisiXhosaasLoLTbeenlimitedtothefirstsixGrades,thestreamwouldhavebeenlate-transitincharacter,andthemodelasawholewouldbelonginthetransitionalcategoryofparallel-streammodels.

Thechallengeinallparallel-streammodelsishowtobridgethegapbetweenthestreamstoavoidasituationof‘twoschoolsinoneschool’.

PRAESA – Occasional Papers No. 32�� Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centred language typology of primary schools in South Africa

Inthemodelabove,onewayoffacilitatingjointlearningwouldbetocombineorreshuffleEnglish-as-a-subjectclassesacrossthestreams,possiblyviateam-teaching.AnotherwouldbetointroducetheSecondAdditionalLanguage(AfrikaansSALforXhosa-speakers,isiXhosaSALforAfrikaans-speak-ers)asaninterculturalcommunicationstrategy,asprovidedforintheNCS.

13.1.3 Parallel-3 (dual//dual)Aparallel-3schoolhastwoormoredual_HLbstreamsrunningalongsideeachother.Anexampleofadual//dualschoolwouldbeonethathasanAfrikaans-Englishdual-mediumstreamparalleltoaisiXhosa-Englishdual-mediumstreamina

multilingualperi-urbanenvironment.Providedatleast75%oflearnersinbothstreamsareschooledthroughaHLatleastuptotheendofGrade6,theschoolisaHLbinstitution.

Intheexample,bothdual-mediumstreamsfollowthegradual(LoLTseparation)approachinwhich,afteraninitialHLEphase,EnglishisprogressivelyusedasaLoLTacrossthecurricu-lum.HadtheuseoftheHL-LoLTbeenlimitedtothefirstsixGrades,thestreamwouldhavebeenlate-transitincharacter,andthemodelasawholewouldbelonginthetransitionalcategoryofparallel-streammodels.TheSecondAdditionalLanguagehasbeenaddedinfromGrade7,asprovidedforbytheNCS.

Par. 3: dual Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 G 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 26: Illustrative example of a parallel-3 (Afr&Eng//Xho&Eng) school, Afrikaans//English dual-medium stream (above) and isiXhosa//English dual-medium stream (below)

Par. 3: dual Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 G 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




13.2 Transitional (type T) modelsTransitionalortype Tmodelsarethoseinwhichoneormoreofthestreamsis(are)late_transit.TherearethreetypeTvariants:late-transit//HLE,late-transit//dual,andlate-transit//late-transit.

13.2.1 Parallel-4 (Late-transit//HLE)Aparallel-4schoolhasoneormorelate-transitstreamsrunningparalleltooneormoreHLEstreams.

Intheexample,thelate-transitstream(Xho>>Eng)followsagradualmixedLoLTalloca-tionapproachinwhich,afteraninitialHLEphase,EnglishisincrementallyusedasaLoLTacrossthecurriculumuntilittakesoverassoleLoLTinGrade7.TheSecondAdditionalLanguagehasbeenaddedinfromGrade7,asprovidedforbytheNCS.

13.2.2 Parallel-5 (Late-transit//dual)Aparallel-5schoolhasoneormorelate-transitstreamsrunningparalleltooneormoredual_HLbstreams.

Intheaboveexample,bothstreamsfollowanincrementalapproachtobilingualism.Thedifferenceisthatthedual-mediumstream(Afr//Eng)continuesusingtheHL-LoLTthroughtotheschool’sexityear(Grade7),whereasthelate-transitstream(Xho>>Eng)discontinuestheuseoftheHL-LoLTattheendofGrade6.TheSecondAdditionalLanguagehasbeenaddedinfromGrade7,asprovidedforbytheNCS.

Themodelallowsforsomevariationaccordingtofrequencyandstaffing.Ifallthesubjectsaretaughtbythesameteacher,theapproachalsodemandsthattheteacherbecomfortableorallyandinwritinginbothlanguages.Ifsometeachersonthestaffarenotabletoteachthroughbothlanguages,thesubjects

Par. �: HLE Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 27: Illustrative example of a parallel-� (Afr//Xhosa>>Eng) school, Afrikaans HLE stream (above) and isiXhosa>>English late-transit stream (below)

Par. �: late-tr

Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr7

Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s


EngGenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud GenStud isiXhosa6 hrs 6 hrs 6 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs 5 hrs X+E biling



couldbedividedupaccordingtotherelevantteachers’languageproficiency.

Totakeanideal-typicalexamplefromtheCapeFlats:aprimaryschoolinanewworking-classarea(township)hasatotalrollof560learners;halfof

thesehaveAfrikaansastheirhomelanguage,theotherhalfisiXhosa,distributedevenlythroughouttheGrades.Eachclasshas40learners,andeachGradehastwoclasses.Halfofthe�4teachersareAfrikaans-Englishbilinguals,theotherhalfareXhosa-English


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 2�: Illustrative example of a parallel-5 (Afr-Eng//Xho>>Eng) school, Afrikaans-English dual-medium stream (above) and isiXhosa>>English late-transit stream (below)

Par. 5: late-tr


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Afrikaans-English dual-medium_HLb stream

IsiXhosa>>English late-transit stream

1st period Maths (in Afr) Maths (in Xho) 1st period2nd period NS (in Afr) NS (in Xho) 2nd period3rd period HL (in Afr) HL (in Xho) 3rd period

4th period GS #1: in English in mixed classes

5th period FAL: in English in mixed classes

6th period SS (in Afr ) SS (in Xho ) 6th period

7thperiod GS #2 (in Afr) GS #2 (in Xho) 7thperiod

Figure 2�: Illustrative example of a parallel-5 (late-transit//dual) school, Grade 5 timetable

bilinguals–onepergrade.Giventhisprofileandthenecessarypoliticalwill,theschoolcoulddecidetohaveanAfrikaans-Englishdual-mediumstreamrunningparalleltoanisiXhosa>>Englishlate-transitstream.Inordertocombatracismaswellasaffordinglearnerstheopportunitytolearnathirdlanguageinformallyfromtheirpeers,classesforsubjectstaughtinEnglishwouldbedeliberatelymixed.AtGrade5atypicaldaycouldbetimetabledthus:

Inthismodel,theHLwouldfunctionasLoLTinparallelstreamsforcognitivelymoredemandingsubjectssuchasMaths,NS,SSandforonestrandofGeneralStudies(cf.theculturallysensitiveissueofsexeducationintheageofHIV/AIDS).Forthemorehands-onstrandsofGeneralStudies,namelyCreativeArtsandPhysicalEducation,theFAL(English)wouldfunctionasLoLT.Forthesetwosubjectsthetwoclasseswouldbemixedona50:50

basis,i.e.eachclasswouldbemadeupof20HLAfrikaans-speakinglearnersand20HLXhosa-speakinglearners.Ideally,therefore,theteacherswouldbetrilingual!Ofcoursetherealityisalwaysmorecomplexandmessythanthis,implyingthatthemodelwouldhavetobeadaptedtosuitlocalconditions.

13.2.3 Parallel-6 (Late-transit//late-transit)Aparallel-6schoolhasacombinationoftwoormorelate-transitstreams.

Intheillustrativeexample,theAfr>>Engstreamfollowsadelayedlate-transitmodelwhiletheXho>>Engstreamadoptsanincrementalapproachtobilingualism,viz.late-transit_gradual(mixed).InbothcasestheHL-LoLTisdiscontinuedattheendofGrade6.TheSecondAdditionalLanguagehasbeenaddedinfromGr7,asprovidedforbytheNCS.


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s




Figure 30: Illustrative example of parallel-6 (Afr>>Eng//Xho>>Eng ) school, Afrikaans>>English late-transit stream (above) and isiXhosa>>English late-transit stream (below)

Par. 6: late-tr


Lan

gu

age

sub

ject



SAL

Co

nte

nt

sub

ject

s





Part Four: A bouquet of Challenges isnecessarilythebestwayofensuringherchildbecomescompetentinEnglish(themaximumexposurefallacy).

Asituationwheretheparent’schoiceofLoLTislikelytodisadvantagethechildcreatesadi-lemmafortheschool.Bilingualeducationspecial-istCarolBensonrecommendsthatschoolssurveythelanguagecompetenceofincominglearnersbydoingquickindividualassessmentsofchildren’sspokenlanguage(Benson2008),andadvisingparentsaccordingly–withoutturningtheprocessintoalinguisticgatekeepingexercise,asthiswouldbeillegal.Teacherswhowouldhavebeenbriefedforthepurposeandwhospeaktherelevantlan-guageswoulddoapreliminaryoralassessmentatthestartoftheyearinindividualinterviewslasting2–5minutes,usingabankofquestions.Questionswouldrangefromsimpleonesrequiringone-wordanswersandlittleornocompetence,tothoserequiringafewmorewords,someexpression(an-sweringquestionsaboutself ),moreexpression(e.g.futureplans),andadvancedcompetence,respec-tively(seeBenson2004;Benson2008).Ifalearnerdoesnotknowtheanswer,theteacherwouldstoporgoontothenextquestion.Carewouldhavetobetakentovarythequestionsfromonelearnerorcohorttothenext,todiscouragerotememorisationofpreparedanswers.Learners’responsescouldbegradedalongafive-pointscale:

BensonnotesthatthistypeofbaselineassessmentwouldgiveschoolsausefuloverviewofwhocandowhatintheLoLT(s),andcouldhelpschoolsadjusttheirexpectations.Incaseswhereolderchildrenjoinaschool(e.g.inGrade4),theassessmentoflinguisticcompetenceshouldincludereadingandwriting,andwouldtakealittlelonger.

1�. Challenges for information gathering and management Thetypologyproposedhereisbynomeansfoolproof.Indeed,itsapparentcomplexitymayevenseemfoolish!Whateverthecase,itstandsandfallsbytwoquitefundamentalthings:theschool’sabilitytodeterminetheincomingchild’shomelanguage(andcompetenceintheLoLT,wherethisisnotahomelanguage);andsystemicagreementonwhatconsti-tutesaLoLT.

14.1 determining incoming learners’ language repertoireItisclearthatschoolswillhavetobeenabledtodetermineincominglearners’homelanguage(s),andtheircompetenceinthepreferredlanguagemedium(wherethisdiffersfromthehomelan-guage),bydoingquickindividualassessmentsofchildren’sspokenlanguageandadvisingparentsastotheappropriatechoiceofLoLT.InthecaseofspeakersofdominantlanguagessuchasEnglishand,insomecontexts,Afrikaans,determiningayoungchild’shomelanguage(s)isasimplemat-terofaskingtheparentorguardian.Withvestedinterestsinensuringtheirchildistaughtinthedominantlanguage,thecaregiver’sanswerislikelytobeaccurate.Theproblem,ofcourse,isthatinastratifiedlinguisticmarketinwhichtheBantulanguages(notwithstandingthe‘official’tag)arenotyetequalinstatusorincorpustoEnglishandAfrikaans,an‘English-seeking’Xhosa-speakingcaregivermaybetemptedtotrytomisleadtheschoolwhenenrollingherchild.ShewoulddosointhemistakenbeliefthatimmersioninEnglish

1 2 3 4 5

Little or no addi-tional language

A few words/ more understanding than speaking

Survival level

Good expression, speaks in a round-about way, still somedifficulties

Native-like, i.e. like a home-language speaker

Table 9: Preliminary assessment of proficiency in additional language (oral) (Benson 2004)

Gainingabasicsenseofthechild’sexistinglanguagerepertoireordegreeofmultilingualityopensthewayforalearner-centredapproachtotheLoLTissue,andalsolessenstheriskofimposingLoLTmodelsonschools(Benson2008).Thepossibilitythatsomelearnersmayhavemorethanonehomelanguagewouldhavetobeconsidered,aswouldtheissueofattitudeswithregardtovarietiesoflanguages,andquestionsofidentity.Thelatterissueisparticu-larlypertinentinthecaseofKaaps-AfrikaansorAfrikaaps24speakers,manyofwhomcannotidentifyculturallywithstandardAfrikaans,anattitudethathasbeentransmittedintegenerationally.Insuchinstancestheschoolmayadvisetheparenttoagreetoaformofstructureddual-medium(Afrikaans-English)education.

Intheinterestsofarrivingatamorespeaker-centredlanguagepolicy,theschoolshouldregularlycanvasslearners’languagerepertoiresandlanguageawarenessbymeansofalanguagebiographythatwouldincludeaself-drawnlanguageportrait(Busch2006;Braam2008).Suchaprocesswouldnotonlyinformtheschool’schoiceofLoLTsandlanguagesubjects,butwouldcruciallyaffirmlearn-ers’languageidentities( Jardine2006)andgivethemastakeinwhatwouldbecomeamoredemo-craticpolicyprocess.Learnerswould,inshort,experiencealocalisedformoflinguisticcitizenship(Stroud200�).

14.2 Agreement on LoLTAsecondmajorchallengeforourproposedtypologyisarrivingatacommonunderstandingofwhataLoLTis.Asalreadyindicated,theDoE’sdefinitionofaLoLTas‘alanguagemediumthroughwhichlearningandteachingincludingassessmentoccurs’doesnotrepresenttherealityofwhathappensinmostAfrican-languageschoolingcontexts.BecauseofthelowerstatusandsmallercorpusofAfricanlanguagesinrelationtoEnglishintheformallinguisticmarket,theeducationsystemviewshomelanguagesas,atbest,atransitiontoEnglish.InthiscontextitshouldcomeasnosurprisethatschoolsinwhichanAfricanlanguageisusedformallyforteachinghavenocommonunderstandingofwhataLoLTis.Foronesubsetofthese(mostlyex-DET)schools,theLoLTisreportedasbeingthatwhichiswrittenintheschool’slanguagepolicy,irrespectiveofwhathappensinpractice.Thesearetheschoolswhowouldindicate,withoutqualification,that

24TheneologismAfrikaapswasusedina20�0theatreproductionofthesamename,directedbyCatherineHenegan,whichcelebratedthisspokenvarietyandcalledforits‘legalisation’anduseintheschoolingsystem.

EnglishistheLoLTfromGrade4upwards.Fortheothersubset,LoLTisdefinedbyactualclass-roompractice,inparticularthelanguageusedfor(oral)teachingandclassroominteraction–withoutreferencetopolicy.ThesearetheschoolswhichindicatethatisiXhosaisusedasaLoLTbeyondtheFoundationPhase,eventhoughthisisnotreflectedintheirlanguagepolicies.Neithersubsetofschoolshasbeenassistedbyaneducationsystemthat,�5yearsintodemocracy,hasyettoprovidemeaningfulsupporttoschoolsintheformulationandimple-mentationofprogressivelanguagepolicies.

What,then,aretheimplicationsforourproposedLoLTtypology?HowdowegetschoolstoaccuratelyidentifytheirLoLT(s)?Morefundamentally,doestheconceptofLoLTevenapply?Isaskingabouttheschool’sLoLTnotatrickquestion?

Onewayofapproachingtheissuewouldbetorequireofeachteacherintheschooltocompleteaone-pagequestionnaire,andfordistrictofficialstofollowthisupwithfocus-groupinterviewswithteachers.Thiswouldbestbedoneaboutamonthintothenewacademicyear.Questionswouldseektoprobetheextentofthealignmentbetweenthelanguage(s)usedorallyforcontent-subjectteaching(specifyingeachlearningareaorsubjectseparately),forwritingontheboard,thelanguageofthetextbook,thelanguage(s)usedforinternal(written)assessmentandforexternalassessment.ThiswealthofinformationwouldcomplementtheannualreturninwhichschoolsareobligedtoindicatelearnernumbersbyHL,LoLTandlanguagesubjectstaken.Informationwouldbemadeavailabletocircuitmanagersandcurriculumadvisors,ontheonehand,andtoEMISatHeadOffice,ontheother.

Formany(ex-DET)primaryschoolssuchaprocesswillcomeasashock,forothersitwillbearelief.Itwouldbreakthedecades-oldconspiracyofsilenceovertheunworkabilityofanEnglish-mediumeducation(leadingtocodeswitchingandotherresourcefulbutdesperatepractices),withthechanceofachangeforthebetter.Forperhapsthefirsttime,theDoEwouldbesignallingitsseriousintentofgettingtothebottomofthelanguageissueinschools.Manyschoolswouldneedhelpincompletingthequestionnaire,whichwouldofferdistrictofficialsthechanceofprovidingsupport.Anintendedconsequencewouldbethatschoolsbecomemorerigorousinmonitoringactuallan-guagepracticesintheclassroom.Totheextentthatschoolsprovideaccurateinformation,andtheexerciseisnotperceivedasbeingpunitive(andhasthesupportoftheteacherunions!),learnerswouldbetheultimatebeneficiaries.


15. Challenges for provisioning and support Thereareseveralmajorobstaclesthathavetobeover-comeifaHLbBEsystemistoberealisedintheschools.

15.1 Translations: curriculum documentation and textbooksAmajorchallengetotheeducationsystemistomakeavailableallprintedmatterintherelevantlanguages.Concerningsupport,theHLbBEoptionshouldbemadeasattractiveaspossibletoschoolsandtotheofficialsthatservethem.ApartfromanattractivearrayoftextbooksandotherLTSMsintherelevantAfricanlanguages,itisimperativethatdepartmentaldocumentationbeavailableintranslation.Thiswouldincludethefollowing:

AsrecommendedbytheNCSReviewReport,theproposednewCurriculumandAssessmentPolicyandanannualappendixforelectivecontent,plusallotherpolicydocumentsAllofficialdocumentationfromtheProvinceortheDistricttotheschools,i.e.circulars,lessonplans,assessmentexemplars,reportcards,gradingdescriptors,marksheets,etc.Allinternalcurriculumandplanningdocumenta-tionforsubjectadvisors,etc.

Inaddition,trainingcoursesforteachersshouldincreasinglybeofferedthroughthelanguage(s)teach-ersareexpectedtousefortheirownteaching;theserangefrominternal(non-creditbearing)departmen-talworshopstoformalin-serviceand(eventually)pre-servicecoursesatHEIs(andteachertrainingcolleges,oncethesehavebeenre-established).

RegardingtextbooksinAfricanlanguages,letuslookataconcreteexampletoillustratethescaleofthechallengefacingtheeducationsystem.Forthetextbookindustry,economiesofscaledictatethattheoptimalunitpriceofatextbookisreachedatbetween50,000and70,000copies(NCSReviewReport2009:70).Thismeansthatsmallerprint-runsarenotfinanciallyviable,asthehigherunitpricewouldresultinsmallersales.WhatarethechancesthatthisnumberwouldsellinaprovincecommittedtoHLbBE,suchastheEasternCape?Grade4–6learnernumbersinthisXhosa-dominantprovincesuggestthatfullyone-thirdofXhosa-dominantprimary/combinedschoolswouldhavetobuy-intoaparticulartitletomakeitsproductionworthwhile.UsingtheNCSReviewReportguidelinethateachlearnershouldhaveonetextbookpersubjectpergrade–andassumingforthemomentthatalltextbooksaremonolingual,itfollowsthatifallapplicableschoolsoptedforXhosatextbooksfor

•

•

•

contentsubjectsinGrade4–6,therewouldberoomforamaximumofthreeeducationalpublishers–ontheassumptionthateachwouldcornerone-thirdofthemarket.ThesizeofthemarketwouldincreasetotheextentthatWesternCapeschoolsalsoadoptedHLbBE/MTbBE.Althoughanichemarketmightopenforsmallerpublisherswithspecificexpertisein,forexample,anewersubjectsuchasGeneralStudies,inpracticeitislikelythatonlythetwoorthreebig-gesteducationalpublisherswouldbewillingtotaketheriskofproducingtextbooksinisiXhosa.

Fromthepointofviewofimplementinganintegratedbilingualmodel,akeytaskforschoolswillbetofindtextbooksthatmatchsubjectstaughtandassessedbilingually(e.g.MathsandNaturalScience),asopposedtothosetaughtandassessedmonolin-gually.Sinceeachlearnercanhaveonlyonetextbookpersubject,thequestionarisesastowhatlanguageorlanguagestheidealtextbookshouldbein.

Theansweristobefoundintwostages.Instageone,textbooksforGrade4–6contentsubjectsshouldbeproducedmonolingually.Thiswouldmeantheimmediatetranslationor‘versioning’ofMaths,NaturalScience,SocialSciences,andGeneralStudiestextbooksintoisiXhosa,plustheaccompanyingteacher’sguides.Theprocessisalreadyunderway,asisiXhosaversionsinsupportoftheNCShavebeenavailableforsometimeforMathematics(Grade4,5,6),NaturalScience(Grade4,5,6)andSocialSciences(Grade4).Assumingthatmostoftheconceptsandcontentwillremainthesame,version-ingthesetextbooksfortheproposedCurriculumandAssessmentPolicyshouldbefairlyquick.Twooptionspresentthemselves.EithereachlearnerwouldhaveonlytheHL(isiXhosa)version–sincetheformativeLoLTintheintermediatephasewouldbetheHL–whileteachersofcontentsubjectstaughtinabilingualintegratedmodewouldhaveaccesstoboththeisiXhosaandtheEnglishversions.OrhalftheclasswouldhavetheHLversionandtheotherhalftheFALversion,withlearnersbeingpairedoffas‘studybuddies’toensurealllearnershaveaccesstobothversions.Eachoftheseoptionshasadvantagesanddisadvantages,andwouldhavetobecarefullyconsideredatschoollevel.Whicheveroptionischosenitwillbevitalfortheteachertomakeavail-ablekeyconceptsandcontentinbothlanguagesinsubjectstaughtbilingually(i.e.viaLoLTintegra-tion).Itisusefultorememberthatthisprocesshasbeengoingoncovertlyandinanadhocfashionfordecades;theavailabilityofXhosatextbooksandsupportingdocumentationwillenableitssystematisa-tion.Translationswillbecomemorerefinedtotheextentthatteachersandsubjectadvisorsgivetargetedfeedbacktopublishers.Makingavailablemonolingual

textbooksinisiXhosaisalsoanecessarystepintheintellectualisationofisiXhosaandinplacingthelanguageonaparwithEnglish,andwillsendim-portantsignalstoeducationalstakeholdersabouttheequivalenceinstatusbetweenthetwolanguages.

Stagetwowouldbereachedoncethetransla-tionshavebeengiventhestampofapprovalandtheintegratedbilingualmodelshavereachedameasureofstability.Atthatpointtextbooksthatarebilingualtovaryingdegreesareconceivable,suchasonesthatusetheHLastheformativemedium(withbilingualglossariesofkeyconcepts),thosethatuseanintegrat-edbilingualapproach,andthosethatareintheFALmainlywhileprovidinglanguagesupportintheHL25.Untilthevariousmodelshavestabilisedoverthenextfewyearsitisunlikelythatpublisherswillriskproducingintegratedbilingualtextbooks,nomatterhowpedagogicallysoundandinnovativethesemightbe.Ontheotherhand,delayingthepublicationofsuchtextbooks,andproducingonlysingle-languageversions,couldendupdeterminingwhichmodelsareputintopractice–acaseofthetailwaggingthedog.Clearlydiscussionswillhavetooccurbetweenprovincialeducationdepartmentsandtherelevanttextbookpublishersinordertofindcommonground.

15.2 Advocacy and incentivesTherearenoguaranteesthatevenawell-resourcedandsupportedHLbBEprogrammewouldberealisedintheschools.Thisisbecauseofasignificantpolicyconstraint,namelythatimplementationofatoo-specificlanguagepolicycannotunderthepresentdispensationbemadecompulsoryforschools.TheConstitutionguaranteestheparents’righttochoosethelanguageoflearningandteaching(LoLT)forthechild.Andthenationallanguage-in-educationpolicyforpublicschools(DoE�997)specifiesonlythattheschool’sLoLT(s)mustcomefromtheranksoftheof-ficiallanguages.Althoughthepolicy’skeyconceptofadditivemultilingualismseekstoencourageschoolstouselearners’homelanguagesasLoLTsforaslongaspossible,thepolicycannotforcethemtodoso.TheECDoEthuscannotprescribetoschoolsthatthechild’shomelanguage(HL)beusedasaLoLTatanystage,despitethewell-researchedbenefitsofmother-tongue(basedbilingual)education.ThuseveniftheECDoE‘rolledout’theHLbbEprogramme,itcouldonlybeonavoluntarybasis;schoolscouldopttocontinuewiththepredominantearly-transit-to-Englishmodel.

Thisdoesnotmeanthatschoolsshouldsimplybelefttotheirowndevices.Onthecontrary:theeduca-

25SeeMcCallum�994foracostedoverviewoftheseandotherbilingualtextbookoptions

tionsystemhastheresponsibilitytodowhatitcantoenjoinschoolstooptforHLbBE.GiventhepoliticalwilltoadvocateandresourceHLbBE,amixtureofpressureandsupportcouldwork.

Pressurewouldtaketheformofarequirementforschoolstosubmitanannuallanguagepolicyandimplementationplanthatfollowsagreed-uponsteps,oneofwhichmustbetotake(prior)advicefromtheDepartment,andtoamendtheirpoliciesafterreceiv-ingfeedback.AdviceandfeedbackwouldbegivenbytheDistrictoffice,whereneededinconjunctionwithspecialistoutsideagencies.EachschoolmustshowhowitsproposedlanguagepolicyisalignedwiththeLiEP’sconceptofadditivemultilingualism.Theim-plementationplanshouldspecifythenamesofteach-ersallocatedtoteacheachsubject,pergrade,withanindicationoftheteacher’sproficiencyintherequiredLoLT(s).Itshouldalsospecifywhichtextbooksaretobeordered.InkeepingwiththerecommendationbytheNCSReviewReportthatprovisioning(i.e.controlofacquisitionanddistribution)oftextbooksforschoolsmustbetakenoverbytheprovince,theschool’stextbookchoiceswillbescrutinisedtogaugethedegreeofmatchwiththeschool’slanguagepolicyandimplementationplan.

16. From classification to policy realisationThroughout,theunderlyingassumptionhasbeenthatthetypologycanbeharnessedtotheserviceoflanguagepolicyrealisationatschoollevel;thatty-pologisingschoolsintermsoftheirlanguagedeficits(inrelationtothepolicyideal)willleadtosystemicinterventionandsupportatprovincial,district,andcircuitlevels.Thatis,itassumesthepoliticalwilltochangeonthepartoftheeducationsystem.Howthispoliticalwillmighttranslateintopolicyrealisation,usinganEMISsystemreshapedbythenewtypology,isbrieflyspelltout,below.

Asalreadyindicated,theproposedtypologyisopenlynormativeinthatitindicates,viathelearnerHL-LoLTmatch,whichschoolsareinlinewiththeadditivebi/multilingualspiritofthenationalLiEPandcertainprovincialcounterparts.Itaimstoassisttheeducationauthoritiestoidentifyap-propriateinterventionsneededinordertomovetroubledschoolsinpolicy-aligneddirections.Specificareasofinterventionincludeschoollanguagepolicydevelopment(withalltheadvocacyworkthisentails),teacherdeploymentanddevelopment,andprovisionoftextbooksandotherLTSMsinrelevantlanguages.Bydescribingschoolsinrelationtosuitablemodels,adatabasebasedonthenewtypologywouldineffectprovideofficialsandotherlanguageplannerswith


aroadmaptowardspolicyrealisation.Thisprocesswouldbeenhancedbyavisual-spatialdimensionintheformofadigitisedmapusinggeographicalinformationsystems(GIS)onwhichschoolsarelanguage-profiledviaaseriesofdataoverlays26.Thenewtypologycouldassistprovincialanddistrictofficialstosupport

immersionschoolsintobecomingsingle_HLbschoolsearly-transitschoolsintobecominglate-transitschoolsdual_nonHLbschoolsintobecomingdual_HLborparallel/dual_HLbschoolsparallel_nonHLbschoolsintobecomingparal-lel_HLbschools.

Someoftheseoptionswouldhavebudgetaryimplica-tionsfortheDepartment,andothersfortheschoolsthemselves.ThemajorbudgetitemsrelatetolearningresourcesinAfricanlanguages,andin-serviceandpre-serviceteacherdevelopmentcourses.

Nation-wide,theprioritymustbetohelpearly-transitschools(cat.7)transformthemselvesintolate-transitschools(cat.3).Forexample,intheWesternCape’sEastMetropoledistrict,acertaincircuitcomprises2�schools,ofwhich�3areprimaryschools.AllareXhosa-dominantex-DETinstitu-tions,butonly��areearly-transitschools;already,twoarelate-transitschools27,astheybelongtotheWCED’slanguagetransformationplan.Thecircuitmanager’s(CM)taskwouldbetoassisttheearly-transitschoolswithplanningonhowtoaddresstheiradvocacy,trainingandtextbookneedsinordertobecomelate-transitinstitutions.AnenterprisingCMmightusestaffinthelate-transitschoolsasapossibleadvocacyortrainingresource.UtilisingEMISdatabasedonthenewtypology,theCMwouldbeabletoidentifythenumberoftextbooksneededinthecircuit.Forargument’ssake,ifeachofthe��schoolshastwoclassespergradeconsistingof40learnerseach,andadecisionwastakentoreplacemathematicstextbookswritteninEnglishwiththoseversionedintoisiXhosa,some880Grade4learnerswouldrequirethenewtextbook.IfonlyonecircuitineachoftheWCED’ssevenotherdistrictswerepreparedtogothesameroute,thenumberofXhosatextbooksrequiredjustforthatoneGrade4subjectwouldgrowtoover6000–notalargeprint-run,butperhapslargeenoughtotemptcautiouspublishersintotaking

26SeeOctoberetal.(2005)fortheusesofdigitallanguagemappinginoneschoolingdistrict.GIStechnologytoenhancestrategicplanningisusedbytheWCED’sEMISunit.

27OneoftheseissupportedbyPRAESAintermsofthe3Rsresearchproject.

•

•

•

•

therisk,particularlyifsimilarorderswereplacedforothersubjects,andfortheremaininggradesoftheintermediatephase;andifencouragingnoisesema-natedfromprovinceswithasimilarneed.

Asecondneed,ifthespiritofthelanguagepolicyistoberealised,istosupportmultilingually-composedschoolstooffersomehome-languagemaintenance.Insomecases,thesupportrequiredtoturnanimmersionschool(cat.2)intoasingle_HLbschool(cat.�)isoneadditionalteacherwhoisfluentandliterateinanAfricanlanguage.Totransformanumberofimmersionschools(English-medium)inaparticularcircuitintosingle_HLbschoolsmayrequire,asaninterimmeasure,areshufflingofpersonnelbetweenschools,bymutualconsent,untilnewpostsarecreatedorcanbefilledbyanAfrican-languagespeaker.UsingEMISdatabasedonthenewtypologyinconjunctionwithGIStechnologywouldmakeitthatmucheasierfordistrictofficialstoplotappropriateinterventions.

17. In conclusionInconclusion,thelanguagetypologyofschoolsproposedheregoesbeyondthetraditionallanguage-mediumclassificationofschoolsinthefollowingways.Firstly,itdrawsattentiontothelimitationsofthemonolingualhabitusinthecollectionandclas-sificationoflanguagedata.Itargues,inparticular,thatlearners’multilingualitybeformallyrecognizedinEMISdatabasesbyallowingforuptotwohomelanguagesperlearner.AnditstatesthecaseforallocatingtwoLoLTstolearnersindual-mediumclasses.Secondly,itseekstoclarifythemeaningsofmother-tonguebasedbilingualeducationagainstthehistorialbackgroundofbilingualeducationinSouthAfrica.Thirdly,itproposestheoverlayofatechnicaldescriptionofschoolsbyLoLTarrangementwithalearner-centredfocusonhomelanguage(HL)inordertogaugetheextentoftheHL-LoLTmatch.Suchagaugeisanecessarypointofdepartureforsys-temicinterventioniftheadditivebi/multilingualgoalofthelanguagepolicyforschoolsistoberealized.Fourth,itproposesabasiceight-categorylanguagetypologyofschools,inwhicheachofthefourbroadtypes(single-medium,transitional,dual-medium,parallel-stream)isdifferentiatedbythedegreeoftheHL-LoLTmatchtodeterminewhethertheyarehome-languagebased.Thedefinitionofhome-lan-guagebasedbilingualeducationfindsexpressioninfourbasiclanguagemodels,whicharebrokendownintoatotalof26models.Usingthesubjectdivisionandtimetableallocationproposedbythe2009NCSReviewreport,thepaperprovidesillustrativeexam-plesofthesehome-languagebasedmodels.Finally,anumberofchallengesforthetypologyaswellasfor

realisingHLbBEinschoolsareidentified,andsomesolutionsaresuggested.

Severalissuesremaintobeaddressed.Apartfromitscomplexity,thetypologyisLoLT-centric,anddoesnotconsiderlanguageasasubjectseri-ouslyenough–alimitation,givenpolicysupportforsecondadditionallanguage.Secondly,the75%rulingtodetermineanHLbmodelmayrequirerevising,alternativelymayneedtobeadaptedatprovinciallevel.Inaprovincewithaverylargeproportionofmostlyunilingualschools(inwhichlearnershavethesameHL,whichtheysharewiththeteachers),itmaymakesensetoincreaseto,say,90%therequiredpro-portionoflearnersintheFPandtheIPwhoseHLisusedasaLoLTinorderfortheschooltoqualifyasHLb.Eveninsituationsofhighmultilinguality,the75%figureforHL-LoLTmatchmaywellbetoolow;teachersinclassesof40learnersmayfinditverydifficulttocopewithmorethanfourorfivelearnerswhoseHLisnottheLoLT.ThisimpliestheHL-LoLTmatchthresholdmayhavetoberaisedto80%or85%.Theexactfigurewillhavetobedeterminedafteracarefulstudyofexistingschoollanguageprofiles,andacalculationincost-benefittermsofinvestinginanHLbsystem.

Thirdly,thetypologydoesnotconsiderthelanguagecontactphenomenonoflinguaefrancae

(linkinglanguages),andtheextenttowhichthesemay(haveto)functionasproxiesforhomelanguagesinsomemultilingualcontexts.Inenvironmentsinwhichanindigenouslanguagefunctionsasalanguageofwidercommunicationamongstspeakersofseveraldifferenthomelan-guages,thenearestequivalenttoHLbeducationformanychildrenmaybelinguafrancaeducation.ThisisalreadythecasewithregardtoAmharicinEthiopia’scapitalAddisAbaba,andwithKiswahiliinDar-es-SalaamandotherTanzaniancities.AnditmaybecomeanissueinSouthAfricanschoolstotheextentthatanindigenouslanguagesuchasisiZulu,whichfunctionsasalinguafrancainpartsofGautengandKwaZulu-Natal,becomeswidelyusedasaLoLT.ParticularlyforspeakersoftheotherNgunilanguagesisiXhosa,SiswatiandisiNdebele,allofwhicharemutuallyintelligible,theuseofisiZuluatschoolmaybemoreenablingthanimmersioninEnglish.Politically,however,itmayprovetobeunacceptable.Whateverthepermutations,theproposedtypologydoesnotyethaveawayofsignallingsuchuseofalinguafrancaasaproxyforHLbBE.

Theseandotherlimitationsarebestovercomethroughacriticallyconstructiveengagementwiththeproposedtypology.


ReferencesAlexander,N.(ed.)2005.Mother tongue-based bilingual

education in Southern Africa. The dynamics of imple-mentation.CapeTown:MultilingualismNetwork&PRAESA.

AfricanAcademyofLanguages(ACALAN)n.d.PanafricanMaster’sandPhDProjectinAfricanlanguagesandAppliedLinguistics(PAMAPAL)http://www.acalan.org/eng/projects/mphd.php.

Alexander,N.�989.Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania.CapeTown:BuchuBooks.

Alexander,N.�995.Multilingualismforempower-ment.InK.Heugh,A.Siegrühn&P.Plüddemann(eds),Multilingual Education for South Africa.Johannesburg:Heinemann.

Alexander,N.2000.Englishunassailablebutunattain-able:thedilemmaoflanguagepolicyinSouthAfricaneducation.PRAESAOccasional Papers 3.CapeTown.

Alexander,N.200�.MajorityandminoritylanguagesinSouthAfrica.InG.Extra&D.Gorter(eds),The other languages of Europe.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters,pp.355–370.

Alexander,N.2003.TheAfricanRenaissanceandtheuseofAfricanlanguagesintertiaryeducation.PRAESAOccasional Papers�3.CapeTown.

Alexander,N.2005.Towardsmothertonguebasedbilingualeducation.I-MAG Newsletter2:9,August.

Alexander,N.2006.Languagemediumpolicyandprac-ticeasbarriertoqualityeducation.Unpublishedmimeo.

Alidou,H.,Boly,A.,Brock-Utne,B.,Diallo,Y.S.,Heugh,K.&Wolff,H.E.2006.Optimizinglearn-ingandeducationinAfrica–thelanguagefactor.Astock-takingresearchonmothertongueandbilingualeducationinSub-SaharanAfrica.ADEA,UNESCO&GTZ.

Baker,C.�993.Foundations of bilingual education and bi-lingualism.Clevedon,Avon:MultilingualMatters.

Baker,C.200�.Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.Thirdedition.Clevedon,Avon:MultilingualMatters.

Benson,C.2004.Theimportanceofmothertongue-basedschoolingforeducationalquality.CommissionedstudyforEFAGlobalMonitoringReport2005.

DepartmentofEducation.n.d.Dictionaryofeduca-tionalconceptsandterms.

Dyers,C.2008.Truncatedmultilingualismorlanguageshift?Anexaminationoflanguageuseinintimatedomainsinanewnon-racialworkingclasstown-shipinSouthAfrica.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,29.2.

EasternCapeDepartmentofEducation.2009.Homelanguage-basedbilingualeducation(HLbBE)20�0–20�2.ProposalbytheChiefDirectorate:CurriculumManagement.

Fleisch,B.2008.Primary education in crisis.CapeTown:Juta.

Gogolin,I.�997.The‘monolingualhabitus’asthecommonfeatureinteachinginthelanguageofthemajorityindifferentcountries.Per Linguam�3.2:38–49.

Gough,D.�994.Mythsofmultilingualism:demographyanddemocracy.Bua!Vol.9,No3.

Heugh,K.�995.Fromunequaleducationtotherealthing.InK.Heugh,A.Siegrühn&P.PlüddemannMultilingual education for South Africa.Johannesburg:Heinemann.

Heugh,K.2003.Language policy and democracy in South Africa.Stockholm:CentreforResearchonBilingualism,StockholmUniversity.

Heugh,K.2006.Theoryandpractice–languageeduca-tionmodelsinAfrica:research,design,decision-making,andoutcomes.InAlidouet al. forADEA.

Iannici,P.&Kok,S.�999.WeallspeakEnglish,hey?AresearchonlanguageineducationinSouthAfrica.Unpublisheddissertation,UniversityofRoskilde,Denmark.

Jardine,A.2006.Ampe’proudlyKaaps–alanguagebiographyfromtheWesternCape.InB.Busch,A.Jardine&A.Tjoutuku,Languagebiographiesformultilinguallearning.PRAESAOccasional Papers24.CapeTown.

Kinnear,J.2009.GovernmentcommitstonationalpilotformothertongueeducationtoGrade6.LEAPnews2�&22( June):25.

Koch,E.,Landon,J.,Jackson,M.J.&Foli,C.2009.Firstbrushstrokes:initialcomparativeresultsontheadditivebilingualeducationproject(ABLE).SALALS(27(�),pp.�09–�27.

Luckett,K.�993.‘NationalAdditiveBilingualism’:towardstheformulationofalanguageplanforSouthAfricanschools.SAJALS2.�.

MacDonald,C.A.�990.Crossing the threshold into Standard Three in Black Education.Pretoria:HSRC.

Makoni,S.�998.AfricanlanguagesasEuropeanscripts:Theshapingofcommunalmemory.InS.Nuttall&C.Coetzee(eds),Negotiating the past: The making of memory in South Africa.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress.

Malherbe,E.G.�943.The bilingual school.Johannesburg:CentralNewsAgency.

Benson,C.2008.Mothertonguebasedteachingandlearninginmultilingualcontexts:howfarhavewecome?KeynoteaddresspresentedattheNationalColloquiumonMotherTongueBasedBilingualEducation,CapeTown,5–6December.

Bourdieu,P.�99�.Language and symbolic power.transl.Thompson,J.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Braam,D.2008.Realisingaschoollanguagepolicy.PaperpresentedattheNationalColloquiumonMotherTongueBasedBilingualEducation,CapeTown,5–6December.

Brock-Utne,Birgit.2004.Englishasthelanguageofinstructionordestruction–howdoteachersandstudentsinTanzaniacope?InB.Brock-Utne,Z.Desai,&M.Qorro(eds),Researching the language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa.www.africanminds.co.za:AfricanMinds,pp.57–84.

Busch,B.2006.Teachingstrategiesformultilingualclassrooms.Unpublishedmimeo.

Cummins,J.�984Bilingualism and special educa-tion: issues in assessment and pedagogy.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cummins,J.2003.Bilingualeducation.InJ.Bourne&E.Reid(eds),Language Education. World Yearbook 2003.London&Sterling(USA):Kogan.

DeKlerk,G.2002.Mother-tongueeducationinSouthAfrica:theweightofhistory.International Journal of the Sociology of Language�54:29–46.

DepartmentofEducation.�997.LanguageinEducationPolicy�4July�997.Pretoria:DoE.Url:http://education.pwv.gov.za/Policies%20and%20Reports/Policies/Language.htm.

DepartmentofEducation.200�.Language-in-EducationPolicyImplementationPlan.November.

DepartmentofEducation.2002.RevisednationalcurriculumstatementGradesR–9(Schools).Policy.Languages.English–FirstAdditionalLanguage.Pretoria:DoE.

DepartmentofEducation.2005.Grade6IntermediatePhasesystemicevaluationreport,December.Pretoria:DoE.

DepartmentofEducation2009.ReportofthetaskteamforthereviewoftheimplementationoftheNational Curriculum Statement. FinalReport,October.

Malherbe,E.G.�977.Education in South Africa. Volume II: 1923–75.CapeTown&Wynberg&Johannesburg:Juta.

Martin-Jones,M.2005.Thedevelopmentandcon-solidationofcritical,interpretiveapproachestolanguageinbilingualeducationpractice.InX.P.Rodriguez-Yanez,A.M.LorenzoSuarez&F.Ramallo(eds),Bilingualism and education: from the family to the school.Muenchen:LINCOM,pp.39–49.

McCallum,K.�995.Educationalpublishing:apracticallookatlanguagepolicies.InK.Heugh,A.Siegrühn&P.Plüddemann(eds),Multilingual education for South Africa.Johannesburg:Heinemann.

NationalEducationPolicyInvestigation(NEPI).�992.Language.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress&NECC.

Niedrig,H.2000.Sprache – Macht – Kultur. Multilinguale Erziehung im Post-Apartheid Südafrika.Münster:Waxmann.

October,M.,Braam,D.&Plüddemann,P.2005.Realisingpolicy:mappinglanguagetoaccesseducation.PaperpresentedattheGISAfricaconference,Pretoria,October.

Ostler,N.2007.Multilingualisminaglobalizedsociety:todayandtomorrow,InJ.B.DuToit&H.C.Viljoen(eds),Proceedings of the symposium on mul-tilingualism in South Africa as part of the Woordfees, Stellenbosch, March 8th, 2007.Stellenbosch:iMAG&TABEMA.

PanSouthAfricanLanguageBoard&MarkData.200�.LanguageuseandlanguageinteractioninSouthAfrica.Anationalsociolinguisticsurvey.SummaryReport.PANSALBOccasional PapersNo.�.Pretoria.

Plüddemann,P.�997.‘Additive’and‘subtractive’:challengesineducationformultilingualism.Per Linguam�3.�:�7–28.

Plüddemann,P.2003.Africanlanguagesandteachered-ucationalternativesinsouthernAfrica:Assessmentandevaluationmatters.PaperpresentedattheInternationalworkshoponAfricanlanguagesineducation:Whereappliedlinguisticsandinterna-tionalpedagogymeet,UniversityofStockholm,4June.

Plüddemann,P.20�0.Mother-tongue-basedbilingualeducationinSouthAfrica.LEAPnews2�&22( June):�5–24.

Plüddemann,P.,Braam,D.,October,M.andWababa,Z.2004.Dual-mediumandparallel-mediumschoolingintheWesternCape:fromdefaulttodesign.PRAESAOccasional Paper�7.CapeTown.

Plüddemann,P.,Nomlomo,V.&Jabe,N.(forthcoming).UsingAfricanlanguagesforteachereducation.

PRAESA.2006.LanguageTransformationPlan.Aresourcepackforschoolgoverningbodies,princi-palsandteachers,producedbyPRAESAfortheWCED,2006.


Probyn,M.,Murray,S.,Botha,L.,Botya,P.,Brooks,M.&Westphal,V.2002.Mindingthegaps–aninvestigationintolanguagepolicyandpracticeinfourEasternCapedistricts.Pespectives in Education20.�:29–46.

PRAESA.2002.Dual-andparallel-mediumeducationinWesternCapeschools.UnpublishedreporttotheWCED.

Ramani,E.&Joseph,M.2006.Thedual-mediumBAdegreeinEnglishandSesothosaLeboaattheUniversityofLimpopo:successesandchallenges.InB.Brock-Utne,Z.DesaiandM.Qorro(eds),Focus on fresh data on the language of instruction debate in Tanzania and South Africa.AfricanMinds,pp.4–�8.

Ramirez,J.D.,Yuen,S.D.&Ramey,D.R.�99�.FinalReport:Longitudinalstudyofstructuredenglishimmersionstrategy,early-exitandlate-exittransi-tionalbilingualeducationprogramsforlanguage-minoritychildren.ExecutiveSummary.SanMateo:AguirreInternational.

SavetheChildren(UK).c. 2007.Theuseoflanguageinchildren’seducation.Apolicystatement.http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/briefing-policy_statement-scuk_language_edu.pdf.

Stroud,C.&Heugh,K.2004.Languagerightsandlinguisticcitizenship.InJ.Freeland&D.Patrick(eds),Language Rights and Survival: Sociolinguistic and Sociocultural Perspectives.Manchester,UK:StJeromePublishing.

Stroud,C.200�.Africanmother-tongueprogrammesandthepoliticsoflanguage:Linguisticcitizenshipversuslinguistichumanrights.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development2.4:339–355.

Thomas,W.&Collier,V.2002.Anationalstudyofschooleffectivenessforlanguageminoritystudents’

Glossary Abrupt/50:50 bi-LoLT model:thefull-onormaximaluseoftheFAL-LoLTfromitsintroduc-tionorgradeofonset,asanequalpartneralongsidetheHL-LoLT,orassoleLoLTfromGrade7inthecaseofsomelate-transitvariants.Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT.Abrupt/50:50bi-LoLTmodelsdifferfromeachotherinrelationtoFAL-LoLTstartingpoint,durationofHL-LoLTuse,and/orprincipleofLoLTallocation.[Typologylevel6]Bi-LoLT model:single-streamHLbmodelinwhichlearnersareexposedtotwoLoLTs,whetherconsecutivelyand/orconcurrently.Bi-LoLTmodelsarefoundinboththemaintenanceandthetransi-tional_HLbcategories,andcomprisedual_HLbandlate-transitmodels.Delayed bi-LoLT model:oneinwhichtheFALisfirstusedasaLoLTinGrade4(inthecaseofGrade7:very delayedbi-LoLTmodel).[Typologylevel7]Dual_HLb(cat.2):single-streamHLbmodelinwhichlearnersaresystematicallyexposedtotheconcurrent28useoftwoLoLTsforatleasttheschool’sexityear(inmostcasesGrade7),usuallyafteraninitialHLstage,providedthatthe(formative)LoLTistheHLofatleast75%oflearnersinboththeFPandtheIP,andthattheHL-LoLTisusedfornolessthan50%ofcurriculumtimethroughGrade6.ThereisthusnoexitoftheHL-LoLT.Thereareninesub-types(dual-�todual-9),whichdifferwithregardtotheyearofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT,themannerofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT,andtheLoLTallocationprinciple.Dual_nonHLb(cat.7):nonHLbsingle-streammodel(school)inwhichlearnersinatleastoneclassexperiencethecurriculumthroughtwoconcurrentLoLTs,butinwhichfewerthan75%oflearnersintheIPandFParetaughtintheirHL(s),and/ortheHL-LoLTisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeatanypointinGrade�-6.Dual-1 (abrupt_initial_separation): bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthesuddenandfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,oneLoLT).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseintheuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.TheHL-LoLTiscontinuedthroughtheschool’sexityear.[Typologylevel9]Dual-2 (abrupt_initial_integration): bi-LoLTmodelinwhichallcontentsubjectsaretaught

28Concurrenthereistakentomeaninthesameyear/grade,notnecessarilyinthesameclassorsubject.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

bilinguallythroughtheschool’sexityear.ThereisnoproportionateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.TheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Dual-3 (abrupt_initial_mixed):bi-LoLTmodelinwhichsomecontentsubjectsareconsistentlytaughtmonolinguallyfromGrade�andothersareconsist-entlytaughtbilinguallyfromGrade�.ThereisthusnochangeintheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTthroughtotheschool’sexityear.TheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Dual-4 (abrupt_delayed_separation):bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthedelayedfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4orlateralongsidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,onelanguage).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.TheHL-LoLTiscontinuedtotheschool’sexityear.Therearetwovariants,dependingontheyearofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT.Inthedelayedvariant(4a),onsetoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtoGrade4;inthevery delayedvariant(4b),theuseoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtotheschool’sexityear(Grade7inmostcases).[Typologylevel9]Dual-5 (abrupt_delayed_integration): bi-LoLTmodelinwhichtheonsetoftheFAL-LoLTispost-poned,usuallytoGrade4,andallcontentsubjectsaretaughtbilinguallyfromthatpointonwardsi.e.totheendoftheschool’sexityear.WherebilingualintegrateduseoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtotheschool’sexityear,wespeakofavery delayeddual-mediumvariant.ThereisnoproportionateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.TheHLisgenerallytheforma-tiveLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Dual-6 (gradual_initial_separation): bi-LoLTmodelthatinvolvesthephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLT.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.UseoftheHL-LoLTcontinuesthroughtotheendoftheschool’sexityear.[Typologylevel9]

•

•

•

•

long-termacademicachievement.FinalReportExecutiveSummary.http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/�.�_final.html.

Thomas,W.P.&Collier,V.P.�997.Schooleffective-nessforlanguageminoritystudents.SummaryofreportforNationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.

UNESCO.�953.The use of the vernacular languages in education.Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO2007.Advocacy kit for promoting multilin-gual education: including the excluded.Bangkok:UNESCOBangkok.

WesternCapeEducationDepartment(WCED)TaskTeam.2002.LanguagepolicyintheprimaryschoolsoftheWesternCape.http://wced.wcape.gov.za/documents/lang_policy/index_exsum.html.

WesternCapeEducationDepartment.2006.WCEDLanguageTransformationPlan.WKOD-Taaltransformasieplan.Isicwangcisosenguqukusetyenzisolweelwimikwezemfundo.

WesternCapeEducationDepartmentwithPRAESA.2007.LanguageTransformationPlan.Aresourcepackforschoolgoverningbodies,principalsandteachers.WCED&PRAESA.

Wiley,T.�996.Literacy and language diversity in the United States.McHenry:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.

Wits-EPU.2009.Aninvestigationintothelanguagesoflearningandteachinginschools.FinalreportsubmittedtotheDepartmentofEducation,27March2009.

Young,C.2002.Firstlanguagefirst:literacyeducationforthefutureinamultilingualPhilippinesociety.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism5.4:22�–232.


Dual-7 (gradual_initial_mixed): bi-LoLTmodeldefinedbythephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegration.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.ConcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear.[Typologylevel9]Dual-8 (gradual_delayed_ separation): bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthedelayed,incrementalintroduc-tionoftheFAL-LoLTinGrade4alongsidetheHL-LoLTaccordingtothelanguageseparationprinciple.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculum(content-subject)time.ConcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear.[Typologylevel9]Dual-9 (gradual_delayed_mixed – two variants): bi-LoLTmodeldefinedbythephasedanddelayedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4along-sidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegrationapproaches.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculumtimethroughGrade6.ConcurrentuseofbothLoLTscontinuestotheschool’sexityear.[Typologylevel9]Early-transit (cat.6):single-streamnonHLbmodel(school)inwhichlearners’HLisusedasaLoLTforfewerthanthefirstsixcompulsorygrades,beforetheswitchtoanon-HLLoLT,typicallybyGrade4.ThemodelisdesignedtousethetwoLoLTsconsecutively.FAL-LoLT:useofthefirstadditionallanguage(FAL)forteachingandlearning,includingassess-ment.Inbi-LoLTmodelstheFAL-LoLTisusuallysupportiveoftheformativeHL-LoLT.Formative and supportive LoLTs:AformativeLoLTisoneinwhichconcepts,contentandskillsaretaughtandlearntinitially,i.e.formedinthelearner’smind,usuallyviathehomelanguage.TheformativeLoLTisthustheprimaryvehicleforcognitive/academiclinguisticgrowth.ItisusuallygivenmorecurriculumtimethanthesupportiveLoLT,particularlyintheinitialyearsofabi-LoLTprogramme.ThesupportiveLoLTisusuallytheFAL,whichinitiallyfunctionstoillustrateorprovideexamplesoftheconcepts,contentorskillslearntthroughtheHL,andisgraduallystrengthened

•

•

•

•

•

•

tobecometheformativeLoLTinbi-LoLTpro-grammes.ThetermsformativeandsupportiveLoLTsapplyparticularlytointegratedbilinguallearning,butcanalsobeusedinLoLTseparationmodels.Formative LoLT.SeeformativeandsupportiveLoLTs.Gradual/incremental bi-LoLT model:involvesthephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTinasup-portivecapacityfromitspointofonsetalongsidetheformativeHL-LoLT.OvertimetheFAL-LoLTisstrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLTtothepointwhereitbecomes,orcouldbecome,theformativeoreventhesoleLoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.Gradualbi-LoLTmodelsdifferfromeachotherinrelationtoFAL-LoLTstartingpoint,durationofHL-LoLTuse,and/orprincipleofLoLTallocation.[Typologylevel6]HLE 1andHLE 2:HLEType�isasingle_HLbschoolinwhichaBantulanguageisusedastheonlyLoLTforalllearnersineverygradeoftheschool.HLEType2isasingle_HLbschoolinwhicheitherAfrikaansorEnglishistheonlyLoLTforalllearn-ersineverygradeoftheschool.Home-language based (HLb) approach:orientationthatvaluestheHLasthemainvehicleforteach-ingandlearning,eithersinglyor(astheformativeLoLT)alongsidetheFAL-LoLT.Onlyschoolsinwhichatleast75%oflearnersinboththefounda-tionphaseandtheintermediatephaseareeducatedintheirhomelanguage,andinwhichtheHL-LoLTisusedforatleast50%ofcurriculumtimeinGrade�-6,qualifyashome-languagebased.Home-language based (HLb) models:languagemodelsthatfollowanHLbapproach.Thefourbasiccategoriesare:�.single_HLb;2.late-transit;3.dual_HLb;4.parallel_HLb.Home-language-based bilingual education(HLbBE)isdefinedintermsofitsgoalsaswellasitsform.HLbBEhasthesocio-cultural goalofconsolidatingthecoreofthechild’sidentity;thelinguistic goal ofdevelopingcompetenceinahomelanguageandatleastoneadditionalofficiallanguage,bothorally(bilingualism)andinwriting(biliteracy),aswellasconversationalfluencyinathird;theeducational goaloflayingthefoundationforallotherlearningbydevelopingcompetencetousetwolanguagesforlearning;thecivic goalofpromotingamultilingualcitizenshipinalllearners,therebycon-tributingtothestruggleagainstracism,ethnocen-trismandxenophobia;thepolitical goalofcultivatingmarginalisedofficiallanguages,andtherebyempow-

•

•

•

•

•

•

eringtheirHLspeakers;andtheeconomic goalofachievinggreaterefficiencyintheeducationsystem,incost-benefitterms,andinenablingparticipationin,andthetransformationof,linguisticmarkets.HLbBEisaformofschoolinginwhichminimally75%oflearnersinboththefoundationandinter-mediatephasesaretaughtandassessedinahomelanguageforatleast50%ofcurriculumtimeineveryGradeuptoatleasttheendofGrade6,providedthataFAListaughtasacompulsorysubjectfromtheschool’sentryyeartotheexityearwithaviewtoitsprobableuseasaLoLTatsomepointinthelearner’sschoolcareer.HLbBEcomprisesmainte-nanceandlate-transitmodels,inbothsingle-streamandparallel-streamvariants.ThefourbasicHLbBEmodelsaresingle-medium_HLb,late-transit,dual-medium_HLb,andparallel-stream_HLb.Immersion (cat.5):single-medium_nonHLbmodel(school)thathasoneandthesameLoLTforalllearnersinallgrades,andwheretheLoLTistheHLoffewerthan75%oflearnersintheFoundationand/orIntermediatePhases,and/orisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeinGrade�-6.IftheHLisnottaughtasasubject,itbecomesasubmer-sionschool.Initial bi-LoLT model:oneinwhichtheyearofonsetorfirstuseoftheFAL-LoLTisGrade�.[Typologylevel7]Language approach:termusedtodescribetheschool’sideologicalcommitmenttothelearner’shomelanguage,measuredbythedurationoftheuseofthehomelanguageasaLoLT.Aschool’sapproachiseitherhome-language basedornon-home-language based.Language model:theoverlayofaschool’s(stream’s)LoLTarrangementandthelanguageapproachex-periencedbyacohort,i.e.thecombinationofLoLTandlearnerHL.Thereareeightbasicmodels,ofwhichfourfollowahome-languagebasedapproachwhiletheotherfourarenon-home-languagebased.Seealsostream.Late-transit(cat.3):single-streamHLbbi-LoLTmodelinwhichtheHLofatleast75%oflearnersisusedasa(formative)LoLTthrough29Grade6,beforebeingdiscontinuedasLoLTfromGrade7infavouroftheFAL-LoLT.Thereareninesub-types(late-transit-�tolate-transit-9),whichdifferwithregardtotheyearofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT,themannerofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT,andtheLoLTallocationprinciple.Late-transit-1 (abrupt_initial_separation):

29AsinbilingualeducationintheUSA,‘throughGrade6’istakentomean‘uptoandincludingGrade6’.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthesuddenandfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�along-sidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,oneLoLT).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.DiscontinuationoftheHL-LoLTisattheendofGrade6.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-2 (abrupt_initial_integration):bi-LoLTmodelinwhichallcontentsubjectsaretaughtbilinguallyfromGrade�-6.Thereisnoproportion-ateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.TheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-3 (abrupt_initial_mixed):bi-LoLTmodelinwhichsomecontentsubjectsareconsist-entlytaughtmonolinguallyfromGrade�andothersareconsistentlytaughtbilinguallyfromGrade�.ThereisthusnochangeintheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTthroughGrade6.TheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-4 (abrupt_delayed_separation):bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthedelayedfull-on(50:50)useoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4orlateralongsidetheHL-LoLT,withsubjectsseparatedbyLoLT(onesubject,onelanguage).Onceintroduced,thereisnoproportionateincreaseinuseoftheFAL-LoLT,useofwhichdoesnotexceed50%ofcurriculumtimeduringitspartnershipwiththeHL-LoLT.TheHL-LoLTisdiscontinuedattheendofGrade6.Therearetwovariants,dependingontheyearofonsetoftheFAL-LoLT.Inthedelayedvariant(4a),onsetoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtoGrade4;inthevery delayedvariant(4b),theuseoftheFAL-LoLTispostponedtotheschool’sexityear(Grade7inmostcases).[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-5 (abrupt_delayed_integration): bi-LoLTmodelinwhichtheonsetoftheFAL-LoLTispostponed,usuallytoGrade4,andallcontentsubjectsaretaughtbilinguallyfromthatpointonwardsi.e.totheendofGrade6.ThereisnoproportionateincreaseintheFAL-LoLT.TheHLisgenerallytheformativeLoLTandtheFAListhesupportiveLoLT,althoughtherolesmaybereversedinsomesubjectsinthelateryears.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-6 (gradual_initial_separation): bi-LoLTmodelthatinvolvesthephasedintroduc-tionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLT.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equality

•

•

•

•

•


withtheformativeHL-LoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.UseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-7 (gradual_initial_mixed): bi-LoLTmodeldefinedbythephasedintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade�alongsidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegration.OvertimethesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT.AstheproportionateuseoftheFAL-LoLTincreases,thatoftheHL-LoLTdecreaseswithouteverdroppingtobelow50%ofcurriculumtimeinthefirstsixgrades.UseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-8 (gradual_delayed_separation): bi-LoLTmodelinvolvingthedelayed,incremen-talintroductionoftheFAL-LoLTinGrade4alongsidetheHL-LoLTaccordingtothelanguageseparationprinciple.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculum(content-subject)time.UseoftheHL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6.[Typologylevel9]Late-transit-9 (gradual_delayed_mixed): bi-LoLTmodeldefinedbythephasedanddelayedintroduc-tionoftheFAL-LoLTfromGrade4alongsidetheHL-LoLTusingacombinationofLoLTseparationandLoLTintegrationapproaches.ThesupportiveFAL-LoLTisgraduallystrengthenedtoapositionofnear-equalitywiththeformativeHL-LoLT,withoutexceeding50%ofcurriculumtimethroughGrade6.HL-LoLTstopsattheendofGrade6.[Typologylevel9]LoLT allocation:pedagogicprinciplebywhichLoLTsinbi-LoLTmodelsareallocated.TherearethreewaysofallocatingLoLTs:byLoLTseparation,byLoLTintegration,andbyacombinationofthetwo,i.e.amixedapproach.LoLT integration:principleofLoLTallocationinabi-LoLTmodelwherebythetwoLoLTsareusedinthesamelesson,althoughnotnecessarilyinequalproportionsorforthesamefunctions.Codeswitchingandcodemixingarepermitted,providedthatbothlanguagesareusedsystematicallyforteaching,learningandassessmentandunduerepetitionisavoided.ThisimpliesthatbothLoLTsareusedorallyandinwritinginLoLT-integratedsubjects.TwoimportantpracticesinLoLTintegra-tionare(i)thatallformsofassessment(incontent

•

•

•

•

•

subjects)aremadeavailablebilingually,and(ii)thatassessmenttaskscanbeansweredineitherLoLT,and/orusingcodemixingandcodeswitching.LoLT separation & integration combined: a mixedLoLTallocationapproachinbi-LoLTmodelsthatrecognisesthecomplexityofmanybi/multilingualcontextsandrecognisestheexistenceofcode-mixedvarieties.Themodelsuggeststhatsomesubjectsarebesttaughtmonolinguallyandothersbilingually,whileyetothersmayundergoaLoLTchangeovertimeaslearnersbecomemoreproficientintheFAL-LoLT.LoLT separation:principleofLoLTallocationinabi-LoLTmodelwherebydifferentLoLTsareusedfordifferentsubjects(orthemesorcomponentswithinthesamesubject),orbydifferentteachers,oratdifferenttimeswithinthesamegrade.ThetwoLoLTsarenotusedinthesamelesson;codeswitch-ingisthereforeavoided.Maintenance model: onethatsustainstheHLasaLoLT,eithersinglyoralongsideasecondLoLT,throughtotheschool’sexityear.Non-home-language based (nonHLb) approach:orientationthatdoesnotvaluetheHLasthemainvehicleforteachingandlearning.AnonHLbschoolisoneinwhichfewerthan75%oflearnersareedu-catedinahomelanguageintheFPortheIP,and/orwheretheproportionofcurriculumtimeallocatedtotheHL-LoLTdropstobelow50%atanypointinGrade�-6.Non-home-language based (nonHLb) models:lan-guagemodelsthatfollowanonHLbapproach.Therearefourbroadcategoriesortypes:5.immersion(single_nonHLb),6.early-transit;7.dual_nonHLb;8.parallel_nonHLb.Parallel_HLb(cat.4):amulti-streamHLbmodelthatofferstwoormoreLoLTsindifferentclassesinthesamegradeforatleastonegrade,providedthatatleast75%oflearnersintheFPandtheIPineachstreamexperienceaHL-basededucation.Parallel_HLbmodelsdivideintomaintenance(typeM)andtransitional_HLb(typeT)models.Parallel_nonHLb(cat.8):nonHLbparallel-streamschoolthatofferstwoormorelanguagemodelsindifferentclassesinthesamegradeforatleastonegrade,providedthatfewerthan75%oflearnersinthefoundationand/orintermediatephasesinoneormoreofthestreamsexperienceaHL-basededuca-tion,and/orwheretheHL-LoLTisusedforlessthan50%ofcurriculumtimeatanypointinGrade�–6.Parallel-stream school:aschoolthathastwoormorelanguagemodels,foratleastonegradeof

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

theschool.Aparallelcohortembarkingonanewlanguagemodel,typicallyfromGrade�upwards,alsodefinesastream,evenwherethecohorthasnotyetreachedtheschool’sexityear.Single-medium_HLb (cat.�):modelwhichusesoneandthesameLoLTforalllearnersinallgradesoftheschool,providedthattheLoLTistheHLofatleast75%oflearnersinboththeFoundationandIntermediatePhases.Alsoreferredtoashome-lan-guageeducation(HLE).SeeHLE�and2.Single-stream school:aschoolthathasonlyonelanguagemodel.Stream:cohortbyLoLTarrangementacrossthegradeswithoutreferencetolearnersbyhomelan-guage(e.g.‘theEnglishclassesinaparallel-streamschool’).Schoolscanhaveonestream(seesingle-

•

•

•

streamschool)ormultiplestreams(seeparallel-streamschool).Seealsolanguagemodel.Supportive LoLT.SeeformativeandsupportiveLoLTs.Transitional_HLbmodel:onethatlimitstheHL-LoLTtothefirstsixgrades,eithersinglyoralongsideasecondLoLT.Type M:parallel_HLbschoolinwhichmodelsinallthestreamsfallintothelanguagemaintenancecat-egory.Inatwo-streamschool,maintenancemodelscompriseHLE//HLE,HLE//dual,anddual//dual.Type T:parallel_HLbschoolinwhichoneormoreofthemodelsislate-transit.Inatwo-streamschool,late-transitmodelscompriselate-transit//HLE,late-transit//dual,andlate-transit//late-transit.

•

•

•

•


Other publications in the Occasional Paper series�. Bloch,C.�998.Literacyintheearlyyears:Teachingandlearninginmultilingualearlychildhoodclassrooms.

2. Plüddemann,P.,Mati,X.&Mahlalela-Thusi,B.2000.Problemsandpossibilitiesinmultilingualclass-roomsintheWesternCape.

3. Alexander,N.2000.Englishunassailablebutunattainable:ThedilemmaoflanguagepolicyinSouthAfricaneducation.

4. Wolff,E.H.2000.Pre-schoolchildmultilingualismanditseducationalimplicationsintheAfricancontext.

5. Vesely,R.2000.Multilingualenvironmentsforsurvival:TheimpactofEnglishonXhosa-speakingstudentsinCapeTown.

6. Heugh,K.2000.ThecaseagainstbilingualandmultilingualeducationinSouthAfrica.

7. Broeder,P.,Extra,G.&Maartens,J.2002.MultilingualisminSouthAfricawithafocusonKwaZulu-NatalandMetropolitanDurban.

8. Bloch,C.2002.Conceptsofearlychildhooddevelopment,literacylearningandmaterialsdevelopmentinmultilingualsettings.

9. Heugh,K2002.RevisitingbilingualeducationinandforSouthAfrica.

�0. Mahlalela,B.&Heugh,K.2002.TerminologyandschoolbooksinSouthernAfricanlanguages:Aren’tthereany?

��. October,M.2002.Mediumofinstructionanditseffectonmatriculationexaminationresultsfor2000,inWesternCapesecondaryschools.

�2. Perry,T.2003.Languagerights,ethnicpolitics:AcritiqueofthePanSouthAfricanLanguageBoard.

�3. Alexander,N.2003.TheAfricanRenaissanceandtheuseofAfricanlanguagesintertiaryeducation.

�4. Giliomee,H.2003.TheriseandpossibledemiseofAfrikaansasapubliclanguage.

�5. Plüddemann,P.,Braam,D.,Broeder,P.,Extra,G.&October,M.2004.LanguagepolicyimplementationandlanguagevitalityinWesternCapeprimaryschools.

�6. Bloch,C.2005.EnablingeffectiveliteracylearninginmultilingualSouthAfricanearlychildhoodclassrooms.

�7. Plüddemann,P.,Braam,D.,October,M.&Wababa,Z.2004.Dual-mediumandparallel-mediumschool-ingintheWesternCape:fromdefaulttodesign.

�8. Mbatha,T.&Plüddemann,P.2004.ThestatusofisiXhosaasanadditionallanguageinselectedCapeTownsecondaryschools.

�9. Obanya,P.2004.Learningin,with,andfromthefirstlanguage.

20. Alexander,N.2004.ImplicationsofBrownv.BoardofEducation:Apost-apartheidSouthAfricanperspective.

2�. Braam,D.2004.Communityperceptionsofchangeinaschool’slanguagepolicy.

22. Beckett,T.2005.Languageanddementiainbilingualsettings:Evidencefromtwocasestudies.

23. Nkhoma-Darch,A.2005.Border-straddlingspeechcommunities:LinguisticandeducationalchallengesfacingtheNyanja-Chewa-Mang’anjaclusterofSoutheasternAfrica.

24. Busch,B.,Jardine,A.&Tjoutuku,A.2006.Languagebiographiesformultilinguallearning.

25. Bloch,C.2006.TheoryandstrategyofearlyliteracyincontemporaryAfricawithspecialreferencetoSouthAfrica.

26. Gudhlanga,E.S.&Makaudze,G.2007.Writingandpublishinginindigenouslanguagesisamerewasteoftime:AcriticalappraisalofthechallengesfacedbywritersandpublishersofShonaliteratureinZimbabwe.

27. Deyi,S.2008.UkusetyenziswakolwimilwesiXhosaukufundanokufundisaizifundozezibalo.

28. Broeder,P&Sorce,R.2008.SkillsandLevelsinEurope–managingdiversityinlanguageeducation.

29. Jardine,A.2008.Affirmingmarginalvoices:astudyofagroupofprimaryschoolchildreninanasymmetri-calmultilingualsetting.

30. Benson,C.2008.Language‘choice’ineducation.

3�. DaRocha,T.20�0.WhatarethefactorsinfluencingtherelationshipbetweenschoollanguagepolicyandtheliteracyproficiencyoflearnersatGrade7level?

Home-language based bilingual education: language typology of … · 2016. 10. 24. · 6 PRAESA –...

Documents

Transcript of Home-language based bilingual education: language typology of … · 2016. 10. 24. · 6 PRAESA –...