BILINGUAL
EDUCATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN
Introduction
"Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian
Perspectives is a
refreshingly welcome text by two experts on bilingual education and English
language teaching in international contexts whose scholarship is matched by
their passion for culturally relevant approaches to bilingual education. Angel
Lin and Evelyn Man's careful analysis is contextually grounded as it steps away
from prescriptive remedies. Their work informs policy and practice within local
contexts against the pressures of nationalism and globalization. This text will
be of value to both scholars and serious students as it challenges dominant
assumptions about bilingual education within real world contexts." – Terrence
G. Wiley, Professor of Education and Applied Linguistics, Arizona State
University.
"The
medium of instruction is controversial in postcolonial societies such as Hong
Kong, which often view bilingualism as a ticket to global competitiveness. Bilingual
Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives critically assesses this rhetoric and
explores how bilingual competencies can be fostered effectively and equitably
across diverse groups of students. The accessible presentation of research
against the social, historical, and political backdrop provides unique and
innovative perspectives to teachers and policy makers." –Ryuko Kubota, Professor of Second Language
Education, the University of British Columbia.
Questions
regarding whether a first or a second/foreign language should be used as a medium
of instruction (MOI) in schools, and if yes, for whom, and when, have been
enthusiastically debated in recent years in thailand and many Southeast Asian
societies. The public debates, however, have largely not been able to benefit
from the existing international body of research in bilingual education as well
as the educational experiences of other countries. The reason is that such
knowledge is often either couched in specialized, technical language or
scattered over diverse journals and books, which are often off-putting to
teachers, parents, school principals, policy makers and the general public.
There is an urgent need to critically integrate and review the international
research literature with a view to informing public debates and policy making
regarding the medium of instruction in Hong Kong and other Southeast Asian
contexts.
Discussion
1. Bilingual Education in Indonesia
The implementation of the bilingual
education in Indonesia started in 2004 and gained its popularity for about 8
years establishing 1300 schools categorised as international standardised
schools in 2012. Since 2011 the bilingual education program have been
criticised by some parties which argue that such a program has discriminated
the poor from the rich as those international standardised schools are mostly
enjoyed by the rich rather than the poor. This means that a great number of
students of those schools are from the rich family. Added to this, the
bilingual class students are exclusively treated in terms of school facilities,
academic issues compared to non-bilingual class students. This drives some
opponent parties to take the case into judicial review of the Act of the
Indonesian Republic Number 20 Year 2003 Article 50 Verse 3 about the
implementation of the bilingual class program. With regard to this issue, the
Judicial Court in Indonesian called Makamah Konstitusi came to the
agreement that the bilingual class program has to be eradicated on the grounds
that it violates the basic laws of Indonesian Republic Year 1945. In other
words, the bilingual class program has been banned to be carried out since
January 2013. To counter the decision of the Judicial Court, some headmasters
of the bilingual schools state that the bilingual class program is beneficial
for students to face the global challences.
As previously mentioned, the bilingual
education in Indonesia has been started at secondary school level since 2004
and it gained its popularity from 2007 -2012 achieving 1.300 schools of the
international standard schools (Kedaulatan Rakyat, 14 January 2013). In
January 2013, the Judicial Court issued the strong statement urging that the
implementation of the bilingual class program was against to the basic laws of
Indonesian Republic Year 1945 as the bilingual class program has been only
enjoyed by the rich. Only a few students of the bilingual class come from the
marginal or low classes. This implies that the bilingual class program arises
the social jealousy among the Indonesian society members. Added to this, the
implementation of the bilingual program is believed to generate the degradation
of the nationality among the young generations in the sense that they are less
proud of Indonesian as the national language. Also, the label of the bilingual
class program is believed to be a way of getting fund from the students’
parents and other related parties which, to some extent, violates the policy of
the compulsory education advocating that school fee of public elementary school
to junior high school becomes the responsibility of the Indonesian government.
The implementation of the bilingual
program in Indonesia is very fruitful as it is targeted to establish students
of secondary school level to be competent bilinguals who perform high
competencies in their fields to face global challenges. It also confers some
advantages as explored above. The problem here is that the implementation of
the bilingual education tends to be trapped in equipping the infrastructure of
the schools rather than the development of human resources. This, of course,
spends a lot of money to run out the bilingual education that leads to dragging
the rich to send their children to the bilingual class which is more prominent
and prestigious than regular classes. In addition to this, the bilingual
education is not designed for all classes of certain schools as categorised the
pilot of international standard schools. A great number of schools only offer
one or two classes which are categorised as the pilot of the international
standard schools. This situation drags the social jealousy on the part of the
students’ parents as their children are not evenly treated. Such a social
jealousy can be minimised when the bilingual education program is devoted to
all students without any discrimination. However, it should be noted that to do
so the government should provide a lot of money to cover all expenses for
conducting bilingual education programs to all schools in Indonesia by
selecting the appropriate model which meet the characteristics of each school.
It is evident that the bilingual
education program requires some professional bilingual teachers who are
competent in first language (Indonesian) and target language (English) to use
the two languages as a means of classroom communication of selected subjects
some of which are mathematics and sciences. To cope with the problems, the
ministry of national education via the Directorate General of Management of
Primary and Secondary Education and Directorate of Vocational Schools have
already conducted in-service training for bilingual teachers to enhance their
English proficiency and the knowledge of their fields. However, many of them
still find difficulties to use English as a means of classroom communications.
That is why some bilingual teachers of the pilot of the international standard
schools tend to only use English for opening and closing the lessons. They also
face difficulties of English technical terms, which exist in their field. In
other words, they spend most of their time to use first language rather than
the target language. Added to this, some bilingual teachers have little
commitment to apply the bilingual program as they have become senior teachers.
They also have got insufficient explanations of the main purpose of the
bilingual program which discourages them to seriously implement the bilingual
programs.
2. Bilingual Education in Malaysia
The rationale for bilingual education
is mirrored in the Malaysian constitution which says that Bahasa Malaysia is a
national and official language and that no one is to prevent anybody from
speaking and teaching other languages. The main emphasis in the Malaysian education
system is more on the acquisition of Bahasa Malaysia and English as the
languages of education. The acquisition of the mother tongue of the people is more
geared toward maintenance of native languages and cultural heritage. Bilingual
education in Malaysia can be described in terms what main language instruction
is provided in schools.
The mainstream schools (Malay medium)
provide language instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. English is a compulsory
subject and is introduced in the first grade. English is not only a compulsory
subject to learn, but it is also used as a medium of instruction in the teaching
of Mathematics and Science effective January 2003 (Pillay & Thomas, 2003).
For students whose mother tongue is not Bahasa Malaysia, they can opt to take
Pupils' Own Language, Mandarin or Tamil. In the Chinese medium schools, the
language of instruction is Mandarin. Bahasa Malaysia and English are the
compulsory subjects that students must learn, and are introduced in the third
grade. In the Tamil medium schools, the medium of instruction is Tamil. Bahasa Malaysia
and English are compulsory subjects, and are introduced in the third grade. Students
who attend Chinese and Tamil schools at the elementary level, before going to secondary
schools will have to attend a year of transition classes which is specifically called
‘remove class’. This is to prepare them for mainstream Bahasa Malaysia
secondary schools. Chinese and Tamil schools at secondary level are not given
attention to in Malaysia.
·
Problems
encountered in the stipulation and implementation of bilingual education in Malaysia
Problems encountered in the
stipulation and implementation of bilingual education in Malaysia in terms of:
i) linguistic perception ii) availability of teachers iii) availability of materials
and iv) availability of funds.
The perception of the Malaysian
society towards the use of a particular language other than the mother tongue
is mixed; some have positive perception and attitude towards the use of other
language (i.e. English), while others hold the opposite view. For the majority
if Malays, Bahasa Malaysia is the language that they had fought for to replace
English as the medium of instruction. Realizing the importance of English
creates a dilemma among Malay educators and politicians whether or not it
should be given emphasis. There exists a group who prefers English and there
are others who oppose it. This is especially the case between Malays who were
English educated during the British era and those who were Malay educated. The
Chinese have a more positive attitude towards English. However, there are
differences of opinion among the Chinese towards English. Chinese who are English
educated speak more English than the Chinese dialects, much to the criticisms
of the Chinese educated individuals. The overall perceptions of Indians towards
English are also positive, because there exist many among Indians who see
little economic value in Tamil. Besides, they communicate among themselves
largely in English.
Malaysia faced the shortage of Bahasa
Malaysia teachers when English ceased to be used as the medium of instruction.
There were not enough fluent Bahasa Malaysia speakers who could teach
mathematics and science. In former English schools, some teachers still do
teach in English, even though the national exams are to be held in Bahasa
Malaysia. Most courses were taught in Malay by Chinese university lecturers,
and sometimes in very bad Malay. When Bahasa Malaysia was proclaimed as the
medium of instruction, the standard of English declined. This led to the need
to teach good English especially to the university students. There is a
shortage of good qualified teachers and tutors in universities and schools.
Most of the English teachers during the British era have retired. Malaysia is
now experiencing a shortage of trained English language teachers, and model
users of English.
Another reason is the general
attitude, now becoming policy, which requires Malaysians reaching the level of
tertiary education to have acquired a second language. To the Malaysians,
English is the logical choice for the obvious reason that this is the only
language of wider diffusion that they had been most familiar with for the last
two hundreds years or so. Hence the teaching of English is not only compulsory
at the school but also at the University. Malaysia has plenty of academic
reference materials in English; what it lacks are the English textbooks (for
communication purposes) that have local flavor.
The Malay Mail is quoted: Our scholars
have not produced very much on Malaysian subjects in English. The lack of
financial and promotional incentives, low royalties, inadequate provision for
subsidies and secretarial assistance have all contributed to the unwillingness
of academicians to become the vanguards of this national effort. There is a
tendency for more funds being allocated for Bahasa Malaysia than English.
Malaysia has a centralized system of education. If the government supports a
certain bilingual program, then there is not much problem in obtaining funds.
What is apparent are the differences in opinions among the politicians as to
how much to spend on the teaching and learning of English.
·
General
solutions to the problems present in Malaysia
People's
perception towards the importance of a certain language is very hard to change.
society will show a positive attitude toward a particular language if that
language has economic value and is perceived as being prestigious. The media
seems to play a role in changing the people's attitude toward bilingualism.
Teacher preparation for the teaching of Bahasa Malaysia and English is more
rigorous. There are many Bahasa Malaysia (BM) and English as a Second Language
(ESL) programs developed for the teaching of the two languages. For the
production of materials in Bahasa Malaysia and the creation of scientific
terminology, Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka (Language and Literary Agency) were
created to deal with this.
3. Bilingual Education in Singapore
Singapore’s education system has been
hailed as a great success due to its first-place mean score in math (Mullis et
al. 1999) and second-place in science (Martin et al. 1999) compared to 38
countries on IEA’s Third International Math and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R).
A total of 4966 Secondary 2 (8th-grade) students from all Singapore schools
participated (Mullis et al. 1999). Students from all streams, including the
Normal-Technical stream, were represented (Ministry of Education 2001b). Only
27% of Singapore’s students reported “always using the language of the test
(i.e. English) at home” (Ministry of Education 2001b), while three-quarters of
participating countries had 80% or more of their students speaking the language
of the test at home. The TIMSS-R results confirmed Singapore’s high scores from
the previous TIMSS in 1995.
Since TIMSS (1995) tested grades 3, 4,
7 and 8, it was possible to track how the P4 cohort performed four years later,
at Secondary 2 (grade 8, the only grade tested by TIMSS-R). The Singaporean P4
cohort held its top rank in mathematics by S2; however, they improved their
science score from about average to the top (Ministry of Education 2001b).
Besides looking at the mean score, TIMSS analyzed the proportion of students
that reached international benchmarks. For Singapore, about one-third of its
students reached the top 10% benchmark, with two-thirds at the upper-quarter
benchmark and fully 90% of their students at the median benchmark. Virtually
all Singaporeans reached at least the lower-quarter benchmark. In other words,
90% of Singapore’s students did as well or better than half of the students in
all other participating countries combined. Strict standards for population
selection, testing conditions and quality control were observed by IEA in order
to ensure the best possible comparison across nations.
Judging from the TIMSS results, most
Singaporean students seem to master English well enough to learn math and
science content at a high level of achievement. But how do Singaporean students
fare in tests of English language skills themselves?
The thirty-five country IEA Progress
in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001, which tested 10-year-olds
(with four years of schooling) on reading for literary purposes and reading for
informational purposes, provides an interesting source of evidence of
Singaporean students’ English reading skills. Overall, Singapore’s Primary 4
(P4) students scored significantly higher than the international average and
fifteen countries, not significantly different from Scotland, New Zealand and
six other nations, and significantly lower than England, the United States and
nine other countries. For both literary and informational purposes, Singapore
performed significantly better than 15 countries, and did not significantly
differ from eleven and twelve countries, respectively, including the US on
reading for informational purposes. Singapore, at 43%, was one of only four
countries in which less than half of their students “always” or “almost always”
spoke the language of the test at home. Despite the status of English as a
non-native language for the majority of Singaporean students, Singapore’s
scores compare favorably to countries in which the majority of students speak
the language of instruction at home.
The international comparisons do not
compare the different ethnic groups within Singapore. Singapore’s Ministry of
Education releases some of its own exam results by ethnicity. On the Primary
School Leaving Exam (PSLE), required of all students after six years of
elementary education, overall 97.7% of Singaporean students in the top (EM1)
and middle (EM2) streams passed in 2001 (Ministry of Education 2002), with
little variability by ethnic group (95.7% of Malays, 98.0% of Chinese and 98.2%
of Indians). In other words, for the approximately 95% of Singaporean students
who make it into the regular and elite tracks for upper primary school,
virtually all of them pass their English exam, regardless of ethnicity. This
would indicate that English may function as a “neutral” language, giving no
ethnic group an advantage, at least at the primary level. Students in the
lowest (EM3) stream take a “Foundation English” exam and are not included in
this figure; this group probably includes a disproportionate percentage of
Malays and Indians, as reflected by differing PSLE pass rates.
What happens at the secondary level?
Since 1995, over 60% percent of students from Primary 6 each year entered the
“Special” or “Express” streams. Since 1998, an additional 50% or so of the •
626 •
“Normal” stream students took the
Cambridge O-levels1 after a fifth year of study. O-level results, therefore,
already exclude the bottom 20% of students. Despite this exclusion, a disparity
between the ethnic groups exists on the English exam (see Figure 1), which
includes oral, aural, reading comprehension, vocabulary and writing components.
Over the years, Indians have consistently out-performed other ethnic groups on
the English O-level exam (Ministry of Education 1997); in 2001, about 87% of
Indians passed English, whereas 80.4% of Chinese and only 70.9% of Malays
passed (Ministry of Education 2002). All ethnic groups have improved their pass
rates since 1988 (Ministry of Education 1997; Ministry of Education 2002), with
the gap between the ethnic groups narrowing as well.
The goal of Singapore’s
bilingual education policy is not in fact to create a general populace who are
bilingual and biliterate at a high level; this privilege is reserved for only
the best students. With the emphasis on English, what, then, is the purpose of
studying a second language, the mother tongue? In discussing Chinese language
education, Lee Kuan Yew writes:
The greatest value in the
teaching and learning of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social
or moral behaviour. . . .
It would be a tragedy if
we were to miss this and concentrate on second language proficiency nearly
equal to the first language. Malay children should know their proverbs and
their folklore…. For the Indians, the Ramayana and the Mahabaratha provide
marvellous and inexhaustible sources of stories…. That they also carry a moral
message is the genius of the culture. No child should leave school after 9
years without having the “soft-ware” of his culture programmed into his
subconscious
Early on, English was seen
as the language of science and technology, while the mother tongues were
designated the transmitters of cultural values and norms. However, the
government has not apparently tried to judge the success of passing on
traditional values through the mother tongues. The success of the “Speak
Mandarin” campaign is measured by the shift of language use at home, work, and
in everyday transactions to Mandarin, not the maintenance of Chinese cultural
values In fact, it has been claimed that although Indians have undergone the
greatest language shift to English, they have maintained their traditional
values more than Chinese. If this is the case, factors other than language must
be responsible for the maintenance or loss of traditional values.
4.
Bilingual
Education in Cambodia
Cambodian government goals call for
human resource development among local people in order to help them serve in
all sectors in their home villages and provinces. This includes an emphasis on
ethnic minorities, with special strategies to meet their specific needs and
challenges, many of which differ from those of the lowland Khmer populations.
Basic education is foundational to all types of development. It helps to build
the human resources necessary for community development and to address poverty
alleviation and other emerging issues such as sustainable natural resource
management, health, and livelihood issues. Using local languages—which the
people understand—for basic education brings ethnic minorities closer to
engaging in the national society and facilitates nation-building and
decentralization.
In addition, the ethnic, cultural, and
linguistic diversity of the minority peoples, which the government views as a
valuable part of the national heritage, is maintained. An important foundation
for nation-building is for all citizens to be engaged in development, to
readily access and understand messages from the government, and to have the
tools to communicate their own needs and goals. The bilingual education
strategy is important for meeting Cambodia’s national EFA goals. Pedagogically,
we know that for effective education to take place, we must start with the
known and move to the unknown. Khmer is a foreign language for the ethnic
minorities. Therefore they need to start with their own language in order to
access Khmer. To use only the national language (Khmer) for instruction in
ethnic minority areas can be compared to education systems in the past that
required Khmer-speaking peoples to access education only through learning
French. The difficulties minority learners encounter because of the language
barrier are similar to those experienced by Khmers studying French or English
as a second language. In keeping with their rights to receive an education, all
citizens of the country have the right to read and write the national language
as well as their local language. These basic skills make them stronger citizens
and facilitate their engagement in civil society. In summary, bilingual
education helps highlanders engage more fully in development and nation-building
and helps them to make development plans appropriate to their communities in
order to ensure a positive future.
The Cambodian government supports
expansion of bilingual education to meet the EFA goals for indigenous minority
peoples, both children and adults. Bilingual education pilots in Cambodia have
demonstrated that using the vernaculars along with the national language
facilitates access to education and development, which in turn has the
potential to meet poverty reduction goals, strengthen human resources at the
local level, and facilitate nation building. In particular, the bilingual
approach is an effective strategy necessary to achieve National EFA goals for
the ethnic minority peoples in northeastern Cambodia.
5.
Bilingual
Education in Vietnam
Although there has been little research into bilingualism and
multilingualism in Vietnam, it has been practised for a long time since Vietnam
has a long history with the invasion of Chinese, French and other forces.
Moreover, Vietnam has fifty-four ethnic groups all over the country. Bilingual
education programs, especially programs in which Vietnamese is combined with an
international language have become more and more popular in Vietnam recently.
In 1991, the two governments, Vietnamese and French, established Vietnamese -
French bilingual education programs with the aim of training a young generation
good at French to serve the country. This minor thesis reports on research on
the graduates' achievements and the perspectives of other people involved in their
education to know whether graduates of the bilingual program are sufficiently
proficient to continue their further study in a French-speaking country.
The results gained from the perspectives of students, teachers and parents
indicate that the bilingual program have not been fully prepared for the
curricula and the outcome of the program. Graduation and semester achievements
both provide evidence that the graduates have become sufficiently proficient to
continue their further study in French. Nevertheless, the bilingual programs
need to improve more to meet the expected results.
6.
Bilingual
Education in Myanmar
The education system in Myanmar is
based on the United Kingdom's system. Primary, Lower Secondary and Upper
Secondary Schools in Burma are under the Department of Basic Education.
Five years of education are compulsory
starting at primary school. To progress, students must successfully write a
comprehensive examination in basic academic subjects. School uniforms are
mandatory throughout public schools in Burma, from kindergarten until the 10th
grade.
·
International
school
International schools can be the
perfect solution for an expat student (multinational corporation executives,
children of diplomats, NGO staff) in Myanmar. International schools provide
similar standards of schooling around the globe, providing for an easy
transition between schools whether they are in France or Vietnam.
There is usually local population, as
well as an international student body. Schools may follow a curriculum model
from the US, UK, France, etc. Primary instruction may be any language (and
multiple languages are usually taught), but it is usually in English. Schools
also provide internationally accepted accreditation such as the international
baccalaureate.
Admission and enrollment procedures
vary from school to school. Space is often limited and preference may be given
to students based on nationality. Tuition tends to be expensive based on local
standards, but offers high standards of learning, boast smaller class sizes,
first-rate facilities, and extracurricular. Boarding facilities are available
at some schools, but most only provide day classes.
·
Accreditation
& Membership
Council of International Schools
(CoIS) is a non-profit association of international schools and post-secondary
institutions which provides educational accreditation, teacher and leadership
recruitment services, links to higher education, governance assistance and help
with founding new schools.
Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) is one of six regional accrediting associations in the United
States. Students and parents can be assured that schools accredited by WASC
have been reviewed and the educational programs that are offered have been
evaluated for quality. East Asia Regional Council of Schools (EARCOS) is an
organization of elementary and secondary schools in East Asia promoting
instruction development.
7. Bilingual Education in Brunei
darussalam
In the case of Brunei, the aims of the
bilingual education policy have been described as ‘ensuring the sovereignty of
the Malay language, while at the same time recognising the importance of the
English language. By means of the Education System of Negara Brunei Darussalam
a high degree of proficiency in both languages should be achieved’. Participant
interviews with the different stakeholders also reflected the recognition of
the great value placed on promoting the English language as an employment and
further education enabler, reflecting its role as a key competency in the 21st
century for all young Bruneians. Although the region remains ‘sensitive’ to
imperialistic dynamics, the common tenor was that English should now be viewed
as a ‘literacy’ and ‘skill’, enabling access to ‘the outside’ and for people
from other countries to access Brunei and Bruneians, and hear what they have to
say.
It is thus seen as an essential
global, political and economic tool. Crucially, English was not only perceived
as a necessity for going abroad, but as another strong language that would help
Brunei as an outward-looking country to develop and move forward. In the
political sphere, the English language was conceptualised as a powerful
‘instrument of learning’, which is crucial for the country’s ability to
overcome its strong dependence on gas and oil production and achieve the move
towards a knowledge-based economy. It was also envisaged that Brunei’s
multilingual context creates a demand for English to become the lingua franca
for young people, that is, their common language for the future.
In this regard, a recent investigation
of attitudes towards the English language within the 17–19 year old adolescent
population found that, although participants were ‘wary of some of the cultural
associations of the English language which could put them in conflict with
their religious beliefs and their own cultural heritage. Bilingual education in
Brunei: the evolution of the Brunei approach to bilingual education and the
role of CfBT in promoting educational change: full report These changes in the
perceived status of the English language also appear to have affected the
relationship between Standard Malay and English. Where previously some might
have seen a rivalry between the two languages, Bahasa Melayu and English are
strongly and consistently officially promoted with equal status. A previous
minister was reported to have remarked that ‘Malay acts as the language of
[people’s] hearts while English is the language of their minds’.
This is quite different from, for
example, the more nationalist-branded rhetoric observed in Malaysia where
English being used for science and mathematics has been perceived as a slight
on the Malay language. In contrast, being able to switch fluently between
English and Malay has become a defining element of Bruneian identity. Indeed,
the opportunity of mastering two languages is perceived as one of the great
strengths of the Bruneian education system, and is not without political
implications. Mastery or bilingual competence is often interpreted as being
able to undertake further studies at Universiti Brunei Darussalam or abroad.
Success in both English and Malay thus has high stakes for young Bruneians in
terms of acting as a gatekeeper to employment and higher education routes and
prospects.
8. Bilingual Education in Timor Leste
The term mother tongue (lian inan in
Tetum, língua materna in Portuguese) is widely used to describe the language(s)
an individual speaks in the home and/or community. The term is problematic
because many multilinguals may consider several languages to be their mother
tongues, particularly in the linguistically diverse countries of the South
(Benson, “How Bilingual” 324). The United Nations defines a mother tongue or
first language (L1) as the language one has (a) learned first; (b) identifies
with or is identified by others; (c) knows best; and (d) uses most
(Skutnabb-Kangas; UNESCO, Education in a Bilingual World 15). A useful
definition of L1 for educational purposes is that it is a language one speaks
and understands competently enough to learn academic content at the appropriate
age level (Kosonen and Young 12). This definition allows for the fact that
although children may use one language at home, they may also speak another
community language well enough to understand it at school.
In principle, MTB-MLE programs enable
learners to begin their education in the language they know best. Learners are
gradually introduced to additional (official) languages and learning to
communicate in these languages. The most effective programs develop both
multilingualism and multiliteracy by building on L1 oral and literate
competence, while teaching additional language(s) (Benson, “How Multilingual”
329). These programs are known as strong or additive Kerry Taylor-Leech 63
MTB-MLE programs. In strong MTB-MLE programs, learners use their L1 for early
learning and literacy development. Teachers help develop their academic
vocabulary in the additional school language(s) so they can understand and talk
about more abstract concepts (Thomas and Collier). As learners gain competence
in the additional language(s), teachers begin using them for teaching
curriculum content.7 In this approach, learners are better able to achieve
grade-level subject competence because teachers use their L1, along with the
additional school language(s), to help them understand academic concepts.
Increasing evidence from countries of
the global South shows that MTBMLE programs improve educational participation
and outcomes.8 The strongest forms of MTB-MLE show the best results. Strong
MTB-MLE programs maintain L1s throughout the primary years. For instance,
studies in Ethiopia and the Philippines provide longitudinal evidence that
maintaining L1s in the curriculum for as long as possible improves literacy and
numeracy outcomes.9 In the new MTBMLE guidelines Timor-Leste can boast some of
the most ambitious proposals in Southeast Asia to date to guide education
policy development.
9. Bilingual Education in Thailand
The present Thai education system is
shaped by the National Education Act of 1999 (ONEC 2002). There are 9 years of
compulsory basic education - 6 years of primary and 3 years of lower secondary
schooling - with a further 3 years of upper secondary schooling (MoE 2008). The
aim of current educational reforms is to promote “quality education for all, a
better quality of life” and “the increased competitiveness of the country” (OEC
2008, p.5). These reforms also call for decentralisation to 185 Educational
Service Areas (ESAs) and for school-based management (ibid.). 11 The Teacher
and Educational Personnel Act of 2004 aims to counter the low morale and
increase the sense of professionalism among teachers (Pongwat 2010). Teacher
training courses have increased in length from a 4 year Bachelors of Education
to a 5 year programme, aiming to produce a “new breed of teachers” .
To become a teacher in a government
school, desirable because of the benefits of becoming a government employee,
teachers sit an examination at any ESA with teaching vacancies. Those who pass
are posted to schools within the ESA, with more recently qualified teachers
often sent to the most remote posts. The National Education Act of 1999 and the
National Basic Education Curriculum of 2001 do not address the issue of
language of instruction in Thailand, but they do allow schools to use up to 30%
of learning time for a “local curriculum” tailored to community needs (Kosonen
2008). Surveys by the Ministry of Education in 2006-7 showed that children in
border areas have lower Thai literacy rates and underachieve in school, with
many teachers recognising that the main problem in the classroom is that “many
students in border and remote areas do not understand what the teachers are
teaching”.
However, neither educators nor parents
question the use of Thai as language of instruction, because it is widely
accepted that to be educated and prosper in Thai society is to speak, read and
write good Thai (ibid.). In recent years, advocacy by NGOs, academics and civil
society in the Asia-Pacific region has raised awareness of the potential of
first language-based multilingual education in multilingual contexts.
Thailand’s first National Language Policy was signed by the Prime Minister in
2010, and supports the use of minority languages “to strengthen the study of
the Thai language and to support the cognitive development and education of
children” (cited in Kosonen 2013, p.46). Although there is no plan for
widespread implementation of this policy as yet, it is in this context that
pilot projects in first language-based bilingual education have started with
several minority language communities since 2007, including Pattani Malayu,
Mon, Northern Pwo Karen and White Hmong (Kosonen 2013; 2008).
10. Bilingual Education in Lao
Language policy experts are in
agreement that bilingual and multilingual education policies result in the learning
environment most conducive to achievement for language-minority students
(Benson, 2002; Klaus, 2003; Young, 2002). They agree, as stated in Kosonen
(2005), that “the choice of the language of literacy is a fundamental
cross-cutting factor in language planning for literacy, irrespective of the
media used” (p. 122). They furthermore agree that ‘inappropriate language
choices can have detrimental repercussions for learners, particularly those not
having sufficient proficiency in the languages used” (p. 122). Lao PDR, a
nation whose policies restrict the use of the mother tongue in academic
contexts, many young language learners are refused the ability to obtain this
proficiency in any of the languages they use.
Bilingual education, as defined as
“the teaching of academic content in two languages, with varying amount of each
language used to teach, and with the ultimate goals of either transitioning
students from the mother tongue (L1) to the target language (L2) or maintaining
both languages as tools to use within the classroom” , relies on the theory of
“emergent literacy”, defined as the knowledge that students acquire important
information before formal education, and the effect on formal education that a
transition from one language environment to another creates (Justice &
Pullen, 2003, p. 99). Emergent literacy, which provides a “foundation for
higher-level literacy skills”, theorizes that students who begin their
education slowly face increased risk of entering elementary school inadequately
prepared. Several risk factors can obstruct young children from acquiring
literacy fundamentals, one of MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION LAOS 6 which is speaking a
language or local dialect that differs from the local academic curriculum
(Justice & Pullen, 2003, p. 100). Phonological awareness, a “critical
precursor, correlate and predictor of reading achievement”), likewise should
not be disrupted, as such disruption is correlated with future academic
difficulties.
In a number of systems evaluated by
Nadine Dutcher in “ The Use of First and Second Languages in Education: A
Review of International Experience” (1997), there was an overwhelming consensus
on the benefits, and lack of deleterious effects of multilingual education. In
Bolivia, for example, reform introduced in 1994 incorporated all 30 of
Bolivia’s Indigenous languages into a bilingual intercultural education system.
Although many obstacles to implementation MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION LAOS 7 were
experienced, there was undeniable evidence that pointed toward achievement in
the longterm. It is important to expound upon these obstacles and
considerations.
First and foremost, in developing
language-in-education policy, government and local agents often concurrently
facilitate and hinder progress. Subject to the particular national context,
sensitive cultural issues may inhibit willingness to explore the subtleties of
language and culture. It is imperative, therefore, that government and
grassroots efforts be both present and coordinated—if not, stagnation is likely
to occur. In the case of the Bilingual Education Project in Puno, Peru, for
example, the national bilingual education policy ultimately failed (despite
observable classroom success), due to lack of parental and community support.
Secondly, policy must not overlook the
importance of the inherent power structure between languages; ignoring cultural
sensitivities, national agenda, value hierarchies and social influences is
nothing short of a recipe for failure. In the case of Lao PDR, where the
government remains hesitant to implement multilingual policy, this
consideration is of upmost importance. Furthermore, implementation of
multilingual language policy, known to increase the valorization of native
culture, inherently involves the reevaluation of social hierarchies. When
implemented correctly, multilingual policies may help to affirm local language
and culture, and ultimately strengthen and/or build bridges between local and
national identities. As the ultimate goal of the government of Lao PDR is to
construct a cohesive national Laotian identity, one of the most effect methods
of ensuring this would be to provide all citizens with the basic tool needed to
acquire some form of this identity; a strong literacy foundation.
11. Bilingual education in Philippines
Consistent with the 1987
constitutional mandate and a declared policy of the National Board of Education
(NBE) on bilingualism in the schools (NBE Resolution No. 73-7, s.1973) the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) promulgated its language policy.
The policy was first implemented in
1974 when DECS issued Dept. Order No. 25, s. 1974 titled, “Implementing
Guidelines for the Policy on Bilingual Education.”
Bilingual education in the Philippines
is defined operationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the
media of instruction in specific subject areas.
As embodied in the DECS Order No. 25, Pilipino (changed to Filipino in
1987) shall be used as medium of instruction in social studies/social sciences,
music, arts, physical education, home economics, practical arts and character
education. English, on the other hand is
allocated to science, mathematics and technology subjects. The same subject allocation is provided in
the 1987 Policy on Bilingual Education which is disseminated through Department
Order No. 52, s. 1987. The policy is as follows: The policy on Bilingual
Education aims at the achievement of competence in both Filipino and English at
the national level, through the teaching of both languages and their use as
media of instruction at all levels. The
regional languages shall be used as auxiliary languages in Grades I and
II. The aspiration of the Filipino
nation is to have its citizens possess skills in Filipino to enable them to
perform their functions and duties in order to meet the needs of the country in
the community of nations.
The
goals of the Bilingual Education Policy shall be:
·
enhanced
learning through two languages to achieve quality education as called for by
the 1987 Constitution;
·
the
propagation of Filipino as a language of literacy;
·
the
development of Filipino as a linguistic symbol of national unity and identity;
·
the
cultivation and elaboration of Filipino as a language of scholarly discourse,
that is to say its continuing intellectualization; and
·
the
maintenance of English as an international language for the Philippines and as
a non-exclusive language of science and technology.
1. Filipino and English shall be used as
media of instruction, the use allocated to specific subjects in the curriculum
as indicated in the Department Order No. 25, s. 1974.
2. The regional languages shall be used
as auxiliary media of instruction and as initial language for literacy, where
needed.
3. Filipino and English shall be taught
as language subjects in all levels to achieve the goals of bilingual
competence.
Since competence in the use of both
Filipino and English is one of the goals of the Bilingual Education Policy,
continuing improvement in the teaching of both languages, their use as media of
instruction and the specification of their functions in Philippine
schooling shall be the responsibility of
the whole educational system.
Tertiary level institutions shall lead
in the continuing intellectualization of Filipino. The program of intellectualization, however,
shall also be pursued in both the elementary and secondary levels.
The Department of Education, Culture
and Sports shall cooperate with the National Language Commission which
according to the 1987 Constitution, shall be tasked with the further
development and enrichment of Filipino.
The Department of Education Culture
and Sports shall provide the means by
which the language policy can be implemented with the cooperation of government
and non-government organizations.
The Department shall program funds for
implementing the Policy, in such areas as materials production, in-service
training, compensatory and enrichment program for non-Tagalogs, development of
a suitable and standardized Filipino for classroom use and the development of
appropriate evaluative instruments.
Conclution
Every society invests a signifcant
proportion of its economic resources in educating itsyouth. Despite the fact
that there will usually be no economic return on this investmentfor at least
twelve years after students enter school, there is consensus in most
societiesamong business interests, policymakers, and the wider community
regarding theimportance of education for ensuring future economic productivity
and social stability.The way any society organizes its education system reects
its current social prioritiesand the implicit images it continuously constructs
of its own future identity.Education is also the gateway to social and economic
rewards for individual studentsand for the social groups they were born into
and represent.
There is a very substantial(and
rapidly increasing) disparity in income between those who graduate from
universityand those who have obtained only a basic secondary school
qualication.In view of its importance for the future of society and the
economic rewards forindividuals and social groups associated with education, it
is hardly surprising that debatesabout the organization of education have
become extremely volatile in many countries.Elite groups in society — those
with wealth, power, and privilege — invariably ensurethat their children
receive a quality education either within the public system or by optingout of
the public system into the private school sector. Perhaps the most universal
comparative education is that schools tend to reproduce the broader social structure;those
with cultural capital of various kinds (economic, linguistic, etc.) choose
schools fortheir children that will reinforce the cultural capital of the home.
The result is that thesechildren enjoy major advantages over those whose home
and school experiences providethem with much less access to these forms of
cultural capital.
Despite the fact that schools in most
societies very clearly reproduce socialinequalities, policymakers tend to adopt
the rhetoric of egalitarianism and meritocracyin discussing education. Schools
should provide all students with equal opportunitiesto succeed according to
their abilities. Tests and examinations ostensibly serve this purpose; all
students, regardless of social class or economic background, are judged bythe same
criteria. It seems that students who come from more privileged
socio-economicbackgrounds just happen to perform better according to these
criteria.Some of these differences in educational outcomes can be attributed to
theintellectually enriching experiences that money can buy: access to better
schools, privatetutoring, books in the home, good nutrition, etc. However, the
reproduction of inequalitycan also be attributed directly to the failure of
education policies in many countries.
References
Pillay, H., & Thomas, M. (2003). A nation on the
move: Challenges in the
implementation
of major change in language policy. Asian Englishes, 6: 36-42. From http://fass.ubd.edu.bn/staff/docs/GJ/jones-2015.pdf
Mullis, Ina V.S., Michael O. Martin, Eugenio J. Gonzalez, and A.M.
Kennedy. 2003. PIRLS 2001 international report: IEA's study of reading
literacy achievement in primary schools. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
From http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/047ISB4.PDF
Ministry of Education. 1997.
"Performance by ethnic group.".: Singapore Ministry of Education.
—. 2001a. "Education
statistics digest 2001.".: Singapore Ministry of Education.
—. 2001b. "The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 (TIMSS 1999): National report
for Singapore.".: Singapore Ministry of Education.
—. 2002. "Performance by ethnic group.".: Singapore
Ministry of Education. Frome http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/047ISB4.PDF
ONEC
(Office of the National Education Commission), 2002. National Education Act
B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments B.E. 2545, Thailand. Available at: http://www.onesqa.or.th/en/publication/nation_edbook.pdf.
Pongwat,
A., 2010. A New Breed of Teachers: Thailand’s Efforts to Improve the Quality of
Her Teachers. Center for the Study of International Cooperation in Education
Hiroshima University, Africa-Asi, pp.155–166. Available at: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/e-publications/sosho2.html.
Office
of the Education Council Thailand (OEC), 2008. Education in Thailand 2007,
Bangkok. Available at: www.onec.go.th/onec_backoffice/uploads/Book/759-file.pdf.
Kosonen,
K., Young, C. & Malone, S., 2007. Promoting Literacy in Multilingual
Settings, Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.
Benson,
C.J. (2002). Real and potential benefits of bilingual programs in developing
countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
5, 6, 303-317. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13670050208667764.
Justice,
L.M., and Pullen, P.C. (2003). Promising interventions for promoting emergent
literacy : three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 23:99. http://tec.sagepub.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/content/23/3/99.full.pdf+html
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar