University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting Template

PERSPECTIVES ON A SCHOOL’S BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN SOUTH AFRICA

BUYISWA MAVIS MINI

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016

To my late dad and mom, Manene and Nomakhosi Olga Njobe, who braved it through all odds to provide me with the basic education that became a firm foundation for all my God-given achievements up to this moment, and beyond; to the inspiration of all grandchildren, particularly Buhlebenkosi Linamandla, Libongwe Zanoxolo, Mikhulu Mthwakazi the only princess, Mnqobi Simbongile, and Mila Salusiwe, to my only living maternal aunt, ninety-year old Mrs. Idah Mkafeni MaRhudulu Luthuli, and to the service of bilingual education in my country, by the grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express deep gratitude to Dr. Esther J. De Jong for tireless intellectual guidance and for her patience, encouragement and support, first as my Academic Advisor throughout my years at the College of Education and also as my Academic Committee Chair. My appreciation also goes to the other members of my Academic Committee, Drs. Candice Harper,

James Essegbey and Brent Henderson for their dedication in serving in the Committee and for their support and intellectual guidance. Dr Henderson was also my very helpful advisor in the

Linguistics PhD program from which I moved to Education after two years. I still appreciate his care and assistance at that time, as well as his serving in my current academic committee. I am grateful to each and every professor who contributed to my learning at UF, and to the auxiliary services like the International Center and the Disability Resource Center for their part in making my stay and learning successful and thus ensuring that this day of recognition of my achievements would come.

My gratitude also goes to the Center for African Studies for financial assistance and overall support and friendliness. The kindness I experienced from other teaching assistants (TAs) and professors of African languages, and from all my other professors and many of my fellow classmates is appreciated and will never be forgotten.

There are no words that can express adequately my appreciation of Nomzo, Dr. Zoliswa

Sidzumo-Mali popularly known as Zoli, who is currently lecturer for isiXhosa and isiZulu, as well as other language related courses, including computer assisted language teaching, and

African Linguistcs at Boston University, and who has held positions of Clinical Assistant

Professor, and Co-Ordinator of Southern African Languages at the same university, namely,

Boston University. Our God-guided friendship and mutual support from time to time has a long history, and it has endured and continued from long years at the University of Fort Hare and in

the same church, the Alice-Town Assemblies of God Church, right into the United States. A sister, true friend, genuine fellow-child of God, she has been a pillar of support for me unreservedly, untiringly, and unendingly, sharing with me from all her God-given blessings and experiences in the United States, in many aspects of my life here.

I thank the people who have always been there for me to fall back on, giving me moral support and numerous other kinds of invaluable assistance, every time I needed it, thereby contributing to making my stay here a success, Drs. Rose Lugano, Agnes Ngoma Leslie, and

Charles Bwenge at the University of Florida. I can never thank them sufficiently. The students I taught isiXhosa and later isiZulu as foreign languages, throughout my years at the University of

Florida (UF) have been very good to me from term to term and year to year. The same applies to those I taught during the summer programs, SCALI and AFLI. I appreciate them and their friendship very much. A heartfelt word of appreciation goes especially to my very good and supportive friends, Ahyea Jo and her husband, Sangyeon and their little daughter, Sarah. I am grateful also to Aazam, Yang Qi, and Dianne Murphy for their friendship and support.

Special thanks go to my spiritual home in Gainesville, namely the house of God in North

Central Baptist Church, for spiritual support, prayers, and the sincere love I experienced. Among them Brother Jerre and his wife, Ms Pat Brannen deserve a special thank you for being my constant home away from home, and being there for me at every turn and every call. I speak

God’s blessings to the church leadership and to all the other children of God for all your kindness and friendliness.

My fellow Africans in Maguire Village and other places, past and present, too numerous to mention by name, also deserve a special thanks for friendship and support, and for the family atmosphere they all created around me in all the years of our stay here. Among them are

Omotola and her husband, Demola, with their young son, Jedediah. Being my nearest neighbors in 383 Maguire Village, Apartment 2 (I am in 3), Tola and Demola have used that as an opportunity to lovingly and wholeheartedly support and serve me with indescribable courtesy and self-sacrifice as they would their own parents. They are readily available to transport me and also serve me in any other way, literally at any time I call. To them too I say thank you without ceasing. Only the Lord can thank them sufficiently on my behalf. This applies also to all the other beautiful people the Lord placed in my life and at my service all the years of my stay in

Gainesville, whose contribution to my success only the Lord is able to repay.

I am thankful for the regular encouragement and support of all kinds that I received from the people at home in South Africa. Among them are my siblings and their families, who have always been my greatest support and fans, uBhuti Thembinkosi, Nomsa (Sno), Thozama (Thozi),

Zamicebo (Breeze Mabhuti), nethunjana uNdileka (Ndili), noSibali uThandabantu (ufaf’olude lwakwaNgxabi); relatives, friends, and all the children of God who always lifted me up in prayers, shared some special moments with me, and made some significant contributions to my life during this time. Some of those who were closest to me during my times away from home were Nomonde Dabula (uMaZulu), Nathi and Vuyiswa Mbombela (kwaQhudeni), my cousin who also is my friend from childhood, Buyelwa Xaki- Bisholo and her family, my Mkhaya’s wife and friend, Mrs. Nomava Tunzelana and family, and my prayer warrior, Mrs. Tomato

Mateke (uSmata). My friend, whom I call My Sister, Beauty Zisiwe Mzati aka Nosimo

Balindlela and her husband deserve special mention and appreciation for their unforgettable contribution that enabled me one time to visit my family after a whole four years away from home.

My sincere gratitude also goes to Xolani Qamata for gifting me with my first iPad in

2012, and for kindly borrowing me a car for my research travels in 2013. This was a great contribution to the success of my dissertation research, and was in addition to all the other services he had had opportunity to render to me. I am grateful also to Sibonginkosi and

Nontlantla Hlalukana for the warmth, courtesy and kindness they and their pretty daughters treated me with as they gave me accommodation in their beautiful Ndabakazi home and were great host and hostess to me. In this way they too contributed to making my research possible and successful. In our language, isiXhosa, ndibamba ngazibini. Ningadinwa nangamso. I thank the principals, teachers, parents and government officials who graciously agreed to be participants for my research, and the Education District, especially Miss Fezeka Njotini who treated me with so much kindness and care that it will take me time to forget.

I still remember with gratitude and appreciation the warm welcome I received at the

Office of the Language-in-Education Policy, in the Department of Education in Zwelitsha, King

Williams Town. To all of these people and others not mentioned I owe the success of my stay and research activities during that time.

Words fail me with which to express my gratitude and appreciation to all my children,

Kungomsa Zanobuhle Eviwe, Viswinceba Zenakhane Enkosi and Mbulelo Simbongile, and

Abongwe-Ophayo Culolikamama (ithunjana), whom I call “kids of mine,” who gave and still give me every kind of support conceivable. My first umzukulwana, Buhlebenkosi Linamandla

Mawande’s role is also significant. May blessings untold follow them all, all the days of their lives, in Jesus Christ’s name! In my home language, bawa bevuka nam. Almost literally, they all have been willing to fall and rise with me, lifting me up prayerfully to encourage me and ensure

my progress, until the end of my program, and beyond. To them too, and to the Lord I owe my success.

Above all, to God, my Creator and Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ my Savior, and the

Holy Spirit my Companion, to God three-in-one and one-in-three, I give glory, and thanks and praises, for divine enablement in all my endeavors through all of my life, and through Whom I am all what I am, and have all what I have, in Jesus Christ’s name. Amen.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 13

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 14

ABSTRACT ...... 15

CHAPTER

1 BACKGROUND ...... 17

Introduction ...... 17 Problem Statement ...... 22 The Purpose of the Study ...... 23 Research Questions ...... 24 Theoretical Framework ...... 24 Rationale and Significance of the Study ...... 25 Definition of Terms ...... 26 Organization of the Study ...... 27

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 28

Introduction ...... 28 The Early Development of LPP as a Field of Research ...... 29 The Second Phase: Failure of Modernization, Critical Sociolinguistics, and Access ...... 31 Defining the Study’s Theoretical Framework ...... 34 Ruiz’s (1984) Orientations in Language Planning ...... 35 The Metaphoric LPP Onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) ...... 37 Top-down and Bottom-up LPP Practices ...... 38 The Classical View of LPP Practices ...... 38 Language Policy and Planning (LPP) in South Africa: Brief History and Current State ...... 39 Dutchification and the Anglicization Period ...... 40 Language Policy and Planning under Apartheid: Afrikanerization ...... 43 Language Policy and Planning in Post-Apartheid South Africa ...... 46 Map of Official Languages of South Africa ...... 48 Current LiEP Context ...... 48 Bilingual Education in Africa ...... 51 Why is Bilingual Education Necessary in Africa? ...... 52 Translanguaging: An Essential Bilingual Classroom Practice in Africa ...... 57 Bilingual Education Program Types ...... 58 Bilingual Education Models in Africa: Early and Late Exit Models ...... 62

3 THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY ...... 67

The Research Site and Setting ...... 67 The Participants and Data Collection Methods ...... 69 Parents Focus Groups ...... 73 Interviews with Administrators ...... 74 Interviews with Teachers ...... 74 Recruiting Members for the Focus Group and Other Interviews ...... 75 Interview Dates and Other Details ...... 75 Summary of Research Travels and Activities ...... 75 Data Management ...... 76 Data Analysis ...... 77 Some Important Facts about Thematic Analysis ...... 78 Analytic Steps ...... 79 The Form, Contents and Use of the Tables ...... 81 Steps to Findings and Conclusion...... 83 Researcher Bias and Subjectivity ...... 84

4 FINDINGS ...... 93

Introduction ...... 93 Historical Foundations of the MPS ...... 93 Long Prior to 2003: Ministerial Discussions in the Province ...... 93 2003: The Plasini School’s ABLE Project ...... 94 Mandate to Extend the ABLE Program ...... 95 2003 and Beyond: Thandeka Seeks Knowledge about Bilingual Education ...... 96 First Advocacy Practice: Department Consults District Directors ...... 97 2009: Next Advocacy Practice: Visits to Districts ...... 98 2009: Next Advocacy Step: Big Meeting at BD-1 District ...... 99 2009. District Level Decisions: Increase in Number of Schools ...... 100 2009. Advocacy at Local Level: The Mzamo Primary School (MPS) ...... 101 2009. Eastern Cape Establishes a LiEP Unit ...... 104 Organization of the Program ...... 106 The Need for the MTBBE Program ...... 106 The Goals of the Program ...... 112 Making math, and natural science and technology (NS&T) accessible...... 112 Solid base in L1 for L2 learning...... 115 To conscientize students about their language’s value ...... 117 Improving matric results...... 120 Program Scope and Principles ...... 123 Program Implementation ...... 126 Professional Development ...... 126 Bilingual Education Knowledge ...... 126 Learning and Teaching Materials (LTMs) Development ...... 128 How translation of LTMs took place ...... 129 Bilingual textbooks as materials ...... 131 Classroom Practices ...... 132

L1 and L2 roles in math and science instruction ...... 132 Inclusion of cultural aspects ...... 135 Translation in classroom ...... 135 Transitional Practices ...... 136 Teaching at Foundation Phase (FP) ...... 137 Teaching at Intermediate Phase (IP) ...... 140 IsiXhosa L1 and English L2 as Subjects ...... 142 Some L1 and L2 Pedagogic Methods ...... 143 Assessment ...... 144 Informal assessment ...... 144 Examinations ...... 145 Monitoring the Program through Outcomes ...... 146 Perceived Effectiveness of the Program ...... 147 The MPS as a Potentially Effective Bilingual Education School ...... 148 Reported Signs of Potential Effectiveness ...... 149 Comprehension Goal Fulfilled ...... 149 Benefits of the Program for the Province and for the School ...... 151 Human Resource Advantage ...... 151 The Economic Benefit ...... 151 Socio-political Benefit ...... 153 Parents-School Relationship Enhanced ...... 153 Benefit for IsiXhosa: Status and Corpus Planning ...... 154 Benefit for IsiXhosa: Maintenance and Promotion ...... 155 Benefits for the Children ...... 156 Contextual Factors Affecting the Program ...... 156 Encouraging Factors ...... 156 Advantage of Existing Evaluation System: ANA Exams ...... 157 Teacher Characteristics ...... 157 Teacher disposition ...... 158 Collaboration ...... 159 Adequate certification as good background ...... 160 Challenging Situations ...... 160 Human Resource Shortage ...... 161 Challenges with Materials Development ...... 162 Conclusion ...... 164

5 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION ...... 165

Introduction ...... 165 Initiation of the MTBBE Program ...... 165 Language As a Resource Orientation ...... 169 The MTBBE as Educational Reform Meeting an Educational Need ...... 170 Translanguaging ...... 171 Use of Both L1 and L2 in Assessment ...... 173 Status Equalization of L1 and L2 ...... 173 Stakeholders’ Understanding of Bilingualness of the Program ...... 177 Program Continuation and Extension ...... 179

Benefits of the Program ...... 180 Political benefits ...... 181 Economic benefits ...... 181 Parents-school relationship enhanced ...... 182 Benefits for the children ...... 183 Contextual Factors ...... 184 Favorable Factors ...... 184 Unfavorable or Challenging Factors ...... 186

6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 187

Introduction ...... 187 Rationale and Significance of the Study ...... 187 Finding # 1: Language as a Resource ...... 188 Finding #2: Free Use of Both Languages at Any Time ...... 189 Finding #3 Teacher Commitment ...... 190 Finding #4 the Importance of Bottom-up LP processes ...... 191 Finding # 5 Possibility of Wider Collaboration ...... 191 Limitations of the Study ...... 192 Further Research Lines ...... 193

APPENDIX

A TEACHERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 195

B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL...... 196

C PARENTS FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 197

D RESEARCH TRAVELS AND ACTIVITIES ...... 198

E INTERVIEW DETAILS ...... 201

REFERENCE LIST ...... 202

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 212

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1-1 Grade 12 Results per Province ...... 18

3-1 Changed Observation Schedule ...... 72

D-1 Summary of research activities ...... 198

E-1 Interview Dates, Duration and Comments ...... 201

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Map of Official Languages. SA. From:...... 48

2-2 Graph of Official Languages of S.A ...... 61

4-1 Education Districts of the EC in Clusters...... 98

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

PERSPECTIVES ON A SCHOOL’S BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN SOUTH AFRICA

Buyiswa Mavis Mini

May 2016

Chair: Ester Johanna De Jong Major: Curriculum and Instruction

This study investigated the perceptions of stakeholders about a bilingual education program piloted in one school in one district, in the predominantly isiXhosa speaking Province of the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The perceptions and perspectives explored were those of the school’s major stakeholders, namely, teachers, parents, school administrators, and district and provincial government officials associated with the program implementation. Data were collected by means of individual and focus group interviews, as well as classroom observations.

Using the thematic analysis method for data analysis, the study found that there was understanding and appreciation of the strong mother tongue based model of bilingual education as an effective intervention for improving access to education for the isiXhosa speaking learners in the rural setting. Reporting improvement in children’s comprehension in math and science, and classroom participation, the teachers as the central stakeholders expressed the hope and wish that the mother tongue based bilingual education (MTBBE) program could not only be continued, but also be extended beyond the Intermediate Phase (Grades 4, 5, and 6) in which it was implemented at the time of the study. Employing aspects of language policy and planning

(LPP) as theoretical framework, the study identified de facto status and corpus planning for isiXhosa as L1 and the major identity marker, and resource oriented status planning for English

as L2 for the learners. It also identified several instances of non-linear intersection among all the levels of the LPP situation. The study also found that translanguaging as a deliberate classroom practice in the bilingual education program improved interaction and learners’ participation in the math and science and technology classrooms. The overall conclusion is that the program’s focus is on educational access and academic performance improvement, and that proficiency and literacy development in both isiXhosa and English are inevitable requirements for the express purpose of educational access and academic performance improvement.

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND

Introduction

A favorable climate for bilingual education was created in South Africa when the country’s multilingual language-in-education policy (LiEP) was passed in 1997. The LiEP establishes a strong foundation for mother-tongue/home-language based multilingual or bilingual education and, together with the Schools Act of 1994, for respect of all languages. The Schools

Act mandates that a school’s governing body (SGB) determine the school’s language policy and choice of language of learning and teaching, in compliance with norms and standards determined by the national minister of education for all public schools. The act also forbids racial discrimination in the formulation of a school’s language policy. The LiEP advocates additive bilingual education (ABLE). Additive bilingual education allows learners to gain competence in the second language while maintaining their first language, usually the mother tongue (Barnes,

2004; Heugh, 2000; Luckett, 1995; Plüddemann, 2010).

However, the implementation of bilingual education in South Africa in general, and in the Eastern Cape in particular, has faced many challenges and delays (Heugh, 2000). One of the major challenges to the implementation of bilingual education is skepticism towards indigenous language-based education, regarding it as an extension of Apartheid’s policy of substandard education, which in the past, was seen as a way to relegate Africans to a low socio-economic status (Braam, 2012; De Klerk, 2000; Thwala, 2006). Other hurdles, some of which are a consequence of the prevailing anti-African language sentiment in the country, are the continued preference for English rather than indigenous languages like isiXhosa for all levels of education

(Aziakpono & Bekker, 2010; Barkhuizen, 2002; Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005; Taylor, 2002; Webb,

1994). At the same time, there is little support for isiXhosa additional language instruction as a

curriculum subject in non-isiXhosa schools (Hendricks, 2007; Mbatha & Plüddemann, 2004).

Also worth noting is the government’s apparent lack of political will for implementation of the

LiEP (Alexander, 2003; Heugh, 2001), and the LiEP’s inadequate wording which falls short of giving guidance for steps to enforce the implementation of multi-/bi-lingual education (Heugh,

2001; Plüddemann, et al., 2005).

While these attitudes and delaying situations exist, there is considerable literature that points out that the neglect of indigenous primary languages in the education of the majority of

African students constitutes an important barrier to educational access for many (Alexander,

2000, 2006; Barney, 2004; Braam, 2012; G. De Klerk, 1995; Taylor, 2002; Thwala, 2006; Webb

1994). Mother tongue-based bilingual education is seen as a major form of intervention that can help remedy the situation from a language perspective (Heugh, 2002; Koch, et al, 2008, 2009;

Plüddemann, 2010).

As the performance of the education system in the country is measured by matric results, the effect of the above mentioned linguistic barrier to education for the vast majority of learners could be inferred, for illustration, by looking at matric results over a number of years, and comparing these by provinces. Table 1.1 below presents such a comparison. It contains the reported (e.g. News 24) matric results’ trends in all provinces, including the Eastern Cape for

2009 to 2012, the last year before the current study’s research was undertaken.

Table 1-1. Grade 12 Results per Province YEAR EC KZN NC WC MP GAU FS LIM NW 2009 51 61.1 61 75.7 47.9 71.8 69.4 48.9% 67.5 2010 58.3 70.7 72.3 76.8 56.8 78.6 70.7 57.9 75.7 2011 58.1 68.1 68.8 82.9 n/a 81.1 75.7 n/a 77.8 2012 61.6 n/a 74.6 82.8 n/a 83.9 Key to abbreviations applying to all tables with provinces: EC = Eastern Cape; KZN = KwaZulu-Natal; NC = Northern Cape; WC + Western Cape; MP = Mpumalanga; GAU = Gauteng; FS = Free State; LIM = Limpopo; NW= North West, N/A = Not Available at time of writing.

The table shows that the provinces with a large urban population, which includes the previously whites-only schools, have much better results than some of the more rural provinces, like the Eastern Cape (EC). The Gauteng Province (GAU), home to Johannesburg, and the

Western Cape (WC) Province, with Cape Town as its largest city, have the best results ranging in the 80th percentile in the last two years. The Eastern Cape (EC) has the worst results when compared with most other provinces.

The provinces shown to have the lowest pass rates in Table 1-1 are those that have the highest percentage of their population living in rural areas. Western Cape and Gauteng are the only two provinces that do not have large rural communities (National Treasury, 2011;

Ndandani, 2014). Ndandani (2014) also points out that the people who live in the rural areas in the aforementioned provinces are blacks, which indicates that the learners in those areas speak

African languages, with English as a second language for them. While other factors cannot be discounted, many experts consider English-dominant instruction to be a major cause for academic underachievement (Alexander, 2006; Heugh, 2002; Thwala, 2006). Some argue that the use of English only as the medium of instruction from Grade 4 upwards creates a language barrier to education access for learners in rural and semi-urban schools in South Africa, as many students fail to grasp basic concepts in math, science and other content subjects at the onset of their educational life, namely at Grades 4, 5, and 6. (Alexander, 2000; Heugh, 2002; Spaull,

2013). Thus they proceed from grade to grade with big academic gaps in knowledge until they reach matric or the final year of high school. At that level it is difficult to catch up and close the gaps (Spaull, 2013). Therefore, there is considerable concern about the role of language as a barrier to education access resulting in a lack of equity in education (Alexander, 2000, 2006;

Heugh, 2002), especially among African-language speaking students. Most of these students are

those who live and study in rural and semi-urban areas in historically disadvantaged schools

(Bell, 1999; Granville, et al., 1997; Heugh, 2005; MacFarlane, 2008; & Thwala, 2006). It is suggested that the solution to the question of language barrier to education lies in the implementation of the country’s language in education policy as a way that opens the door to bilingual education (Alexander, 1995; Heugh, 1995; Luckett, 1995; Pluddemann, 1996, referenced by Banda, 2000) in rural and semi-rural areas.

Notwithstanding the challenges that deter the efficient implementation of the country’s language-in-education policy (LiEP), the anti-bilingual education climate (Heugh, 2001) is changing and the situation slowly improving, both at the national and provincial levels.

At the national level, there are two developments that, at least on paper, give hope that there is a move towards the implementation of the LiEP, which is a largely language-as-a- resource oriented policy (Ruiz, 1984). One of these developments is the publication of

Plüddemann’s (2010) discussion document that proposes a new typology of primary schools for

South Africa. The typology it proposes is aligned with home language based bilingual/multilingual education, and is student-centered. Plüddemann (2010) also proposes systematic interventions, including teacher education, development, and deployment, as well as suitable materials development and official use of all local languages for documentation and other purposes. This discussion paper presents a framework for open spaces for the introduction and practice of bilingual education, and gives guidance and a discussion basis for all issues that might be factors that influence the successful implementation of bilingual education.

The other step is the 2013 publication of The Incremental Introduction of African

Languages in South African Schools: Draft Policy, by South Africa’s national Department of

Basic Education. Its purpose is to promote the equitable use of South African languages in all

South African schools (compare with the current situation described by, among others,

Barkhuizen, 2002; Hendricks, 2007; and Mbatha & Pluddemann, 2004). The draft policy is important because of its promotion of African languages, including isiXhosa, and in particular its criticism of the withdrawal of children from mother-tongue education after only three years.

Therefore, the June 2013 Draft Policy of the national Department of Basic Education provides an important context for the Eastern Cape’s bilingual education initiative.

At provincial, district, and local levels there are, in the Eastern Cape Province, two initiatives to introduce bilingual education to improve the education of isiXhosa-speaking children in rural areas. One is that of the Nelson Mandela Institute (NMI), which is part of the

University of Fort Hare, seated in the East London branch of the university. This institute works with rural teachers and communities in selected schools to develop isiXhosa learning and teaching materials (LTMs) for using isiXhosa as medium of instruction, and materials for introducing English as a subject, for Foundation Phase learners (grades R to 3) (Ramadiro,

2009).

The other initiative is the introduction of a bilingual education program in a rural district by the Eastern Cape Department of Education for the Intermediate Phase (Grades 4 to 6), in place since 2011. The bilingual program involves isiXhosa and English. The department’s aim is to introduce home language-based bilingual education incrementally until all provinces are covered, by 2016 (Braam, 2012). For this purpose, the department established a special unit, called the Language Unit (Braam, 2012), now known as the Language-in-Education Policy Unit.

In addition to these two initiatives, there is an implementing school in a district different from the DB-1 district of the current study, but still in the Eastern Cape. This school decided on its own to adopt an additive bilingual education program. By 2012 it was already being

implemented (personal communication with Director of Eastern Cape’s Language Unit, about

April, 2012). The current study was undertaken in this overall context of rural and semi-rural schools just described, where there is still little use of African languages in the education system, high failure rates among students who need the languages the most, and only a few cases where schools take advantage of the resource-orientation of the country’s LiEP.

Problem Statement

Despite the need felt for mother tongue-based education, and positive outcomes of bilingual education documented elsewhere in the world, very little is known about local practices and features of what works in relation to bilingual education in South Africa. Nothing has been documented in the country about bilingual education between isiXhosa (or other African languages) and English. Little has been written about bilingual education practices in specific local contexts, except to report them in general terms (e.g. Braam, 2012; Ramadiro, 2009). In the nearly two decades since the passing of the LiEP in 1997, there has been very little research on mother tongue-based bilingual education practices in South Africa in general, or specifically at local level (e.g. Koch, et al, 2009). Moreover, little or no research has been done in the country on teacher and other stakeholders’ perspectives on bilingual education at local school level. That is why this study seeks to find out how stakeholders view the newly introduced bilingual education program and its practice at the Mzamo Primary School (MPS).

The problem that the study seeks to address is that despite the existence of a favorable language-in-education policy for using students’ primary languages in education, there is very limited understanding, and thus implementation, of bilingual education between isiXhosa (or other African languages) and English in South Africa and in the Province of the Eastern Cape.

As a result of the inadequate use of learners’ primary languages in their education, high failure and school and university dropout rates are reported among the vast majority of students who are

speakers of isiXhosa (as well as those of other African languages) in schools in rural and semi- rural areas. Literature exists that shows that children learn best when taught in their primary languages. Perhaps a qualitative investigation of stakeholder perspectives about the initiation, implementation, practices, effectiveness, and benefits of bilingual education as an intervention in one of the schools in the only implementing province and district, can contribute to knowledge about bilingual education and understanding of how it can mediate the high failure and dropout rates. Perhaps such understanding can lead to the program’s acceptance and further implementation in other schools in the district, the province, and beyond.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions and perspectives about the bilingual education program in one school in one district in the predominantly isiXhosa speaking Province of the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The school is situated in a district reported to have the best matric results in the province that is otherwise known for having almost the poorest matric results in the country. For this study’s purposes, the implementing district is given the pseudonym, First Bilingual District shortened henceforth as BD-1. The Mzamo

Primary School (pseudonym; MPS) was the main study site for this dissertation’s data collection.

The school was selected because the district official that was the author’s contact had identified it as one of the best schools in the district. The second reason is its accessibility by road, as it is less than one minute’s drive from the paved national road. The goal was to understand and document the what, why, when, and how of the school’s newly piloted bilingual education program (Freeman, 1998).

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What are the perceptions and perspectives of the teachers, parents, school administrators, and district and provincial government officials, associated with the Mzamo Primary School, about the bilingual education program’s initiation and implementation?

2. What are the stakeholders’ perceptions about the effectiveness and possibility of continuity of the program?

Theoretical Framework

To answer these questions the study draws from the following aspects of the LPP field:

Ruiz’ (1984) frameworks of orientations in language planning; Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) metaphoric LPP onion; top-down and bottom-up LPP practices; and the classical language development framework which includes status and other types of language planning as summarized by Baldauf (2004).

Ruiz (1984) proposed a framework within which attitudes and basic orientations in language planning can be understood and discussed. Briefly, the orientations are the language-as- a-problem orientation, the language-as-a-right orientation, and the language-as-a-resource orientation. Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) article provides a description of the various macro, meso, and micro levels of society at which language policy and planning can occur and how multi-layer relations and interactions take place, often in different ways and displaying different dynamics. Such interactions and counteractions can be both top-down and bottom-up practices.

LPP activities, especially in education, often involve interventions in language and language use.

Baldauf’s (2004) summary adopted for the current study describes the following four types of interventions: status planning which concerns the social standing of a language, including attitudes toward the language(s); corpus planning which has to do with improvements in the structure of a language, and includes preparation or revision of orthography, and creation of

technical terminology for the language concerned; language-in-education planning which has to do with the learning of, or in, a language, and includes acquisition planning. It also takes into account prestige planning which is concerned with the image of a language and is related to status planning in the sense that it seeks to change attitudes towards a language. All these aspects of language development are relevant as a lens in the discussion of how the languages involved in the bilingual education program are affected.

Rationale and Significance of the Study

Research on isiXhosa-English bilingual education, especially in the rural Eastern Cape, is necessary to document the program’s potential for improving the learners’ bilingual and biliteracy learning, their L1-supported English language development (ELD), and their overall academic performance. The perceptions of major stakeholders are crucial to this study for the documentation of the local school, community, and government’s collaborative effort in bilingual education implementation. Documentation of bilingual education’s potential as an intervention for education improvement is necessary, especially in the face of the reported skepticism (e.g., De Klerk, 2000) about mother tongue- or isiXhosa- based education in the country and the province (e.g., Aziakpono & Bekker, 2010; Barkhuizen, 2002; Dalvit, & De

Klerk, 2005). While some studies only partially address bilingual practices, predominantly code- switching, and others focus only on single groups of stakeholders, such as teachers (Kimpel’s

2007 study of teachers’ perspectives on the LiEP implementation), parents (e.g., De Klerk 2002), or students (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2002; Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005), this study presents a more complete picture. It does so by looking at several major stakeholders’ views, including some levels of government policy and decision makers and implementers, with regard to the introduction, understanding, and practice of the bilingual education program in a local school context and its effect as an educational intervention.

In this way, the study will contribute to the knowledge of bilingual education between an

African language, such as isiXhosa and English in South Africa. This knowledge might also contribute to efforts toward further advocacy for bilingual education as an essential intervention in the education of all children, but especially those in rural and semi-urban areas.

Therefore, this initial exploration of local, district, and provincial stakeholder perceptions is necessary and significant to demonstrate the potential of bilingual education implementation, and the latter’s possible educational benefits in South Africa. It is also an important, though locally confined, exposition of changes in attitudes toward mother tongue-based bilingual education in the country. Thirdly, it is important as an indicator of the necessity of further research in the area of implementation of the country’s language in education policy.

It is significant therefore as a contribution to the pool of research-based resources for wider advocacy and implementation of bilingual education in other districts in the Eastern Cape

Province in the immediate to medium term, and for other provinces in the country in the not distant future. It is also significant as a contribution to the body of knowledge of bilingual education in the country and beyond.

Definition of Terms

BILINGUAL EDUCATION Basically, the use of two languages in learning and teaching FIRST ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE Second language learned as a subject in South African schools

HOME-LANGUAGE The language one speaks at home, which may be the same or different from the mother tongue.

LEARNING AREA A subject to be learned; or an area of combined related subjects, e.g. language area

MATRIC / MATRICULATION Grade 12

MATHS South African abbreviation for mathematics; math.

MOTHER-TONGUE The language one is born into and usually grows up speaking

SECOND ADDITIONAL Third language learned as a subject in South African schools LANGUAGE

Organization of the Study

In Chapter One I have presented the introduction and background of the study, as well as the statement of the problem and the purpose and the goal of the study. Also contained in this chapter are the study’s research questions, their significance and the definition of terms. Chapter

2 begins with a discussion of the study’s theoretical framework, followed by a presentation of the language planning and policy (LPP) situation in South Africa from historical times to the present. This chapter also contains the review of the literature related to the theory and practice of bilingual education in the global and African contexts, and in South Africa, in particular.

Chapter 3 contains details of the study’s design, methodology, and methods of data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the study’s findings, while Chapter 5 contains the discussion, and interpretation of the findings. In Chapter 6 there is discussion of the implications and recommendations, as well as suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This study examines the development and implementation of a bilingual education program in South Africa as seen through the eyes of key stakeholders associated with one school.

In order to understand the context of the school and the program, this chapter will provide a discussion of language policy and planning (LPP) as the study’s theoretical framework, followed by a description of language policy and planning in South Africa from historical times to the present. The chapter also provides a review of literature related to the theory and practice of bilingual education with special focus on the African context and South Africa.

While there are different ways of defining the field of language policy and planning

(Fergusson, 2006), for the purposes of the current study Baldauf’s (2004) definition will be followed. Baldauf (2004) defines language policy as ‘statements of intent,’ and language planning as ways of implementing the policy. Although such decisions and plans for practices can be made at all the macro, meso, and micro levels of society (Ferguson, 2006; Shohamy,

2006), it is common to discuss LPP from the perspective of decisions made by government agencies at higher levels, with policies then implemented at the meso and micro levels

(Ferguson, 2006). It is also relevant to mention that LPP can be overt, as when undertaken deliberately and consciously by a government department, a group of linguists, and other such agencies, or it can be covert, as when its undertaking is unconscious (Shohamy, 2006).

Ferguson (2006: 1) gives a more inclusive definition of language planning as both practices and the discipline that studies them, as he says, “language planning denotes both language planning practices, that is, organized interventions by politicians, linguists and others in language use and form, and the academic discipline whose subject matter is the study of these

practices.” The current understanding of LPP developed historically in stages that are associated with periods of various shifts in epistemologies and methodologies of the social sciences and humanities (Ferguson, 2006; Ricento, 2000). Ricento (2000) describes three stages of such developments in LPP. A brief discussion of the first two historical periods, with a few remarks about the third period will suffice to contextualize the theoretical framework of the current study.

The Early Development of LPP as a Field of Research

The development and identification of the language policy and planning field as an area of research began in the 1960s after World War II (Ferguson, 2006; Alan, et al., 1990; Ricento,

2000). The macro sociopolitical factors that influenced LPP during this period were decolonization and the rise of new nations, or developing nations, particularly in Africa and Asia

(Ferguson, 2006). Linguists and sociolinguists saw the perceived linguistic needs of the new nations as a rich field for LPP research. These needs included the establishment of one national language, which would serve as a unifying factor for the nation and a basis for national identity.

This was a time when structuralism was a predominant epistemology in the social sciences, and sociolinguistics was regarded as part of social planning. Consequently, the role of sociolinguistics included both the description and the normative task of prescription of language change (Luke, et al. 1990). The services of linguists trained in structuralism and sociolinguistics were enlisted to assist with the identification of the national language.

In some cases, one language was selected among a number of existing local languages and its status was raised to that of national language. This happened in Tanzania with the choice of KiSwahili (Ferguson, 20006). The linguists would be tasked with developing and modernizing the national languages. This development included the writing of grammars, the development of orthographies and dictionaries, as well as terminologies for technical development of the national languages. The practices of selecting and developing national

languages became known as language planning. It is believed that the first person to use the term was Haugen (1959, 1966a) when he described Norway’s 19th century (1814) development of its new standard national language after gaining independence from Denmark (Ferguson, 2006). In line with linguists’ interest in language typology and sociolinguistics at this time, the early LPP period was characterized by descriptions of typologies of language planning as well as approaches to it. The two most influential explanations were the language planning model developed by Einar Haugen in 1966, and the typology of multilingualism developed by Heinz

Kloss, also in 1966. Haugen’s (1966) model defined LPP activities as consisting of corpus and status planning. Corpus planning, status planning, and acquisition planning became the core concepts in the LPP field. Corpus planning or the development of writing systems and orthographies became known as graphization (Ferguson, 2006). Another aspect of corpus planning was the production of grammars, dictionaries, and new terminologies or codification

(Ferguson, 2006). The selection of national languages became the dominant activity of status planning, both for modernization of society in the new states and for nation-building (Ferguson,

2006).

One feature of the epistemology of structuralism was that language was treated as an autonomous, discrete system that could be described and codified objectively in positivistic terms. Similarly status planning and corpus planning were regarded as separate independent undertakings, unrelated to each other or other social activities. Another feature was the view adopted by Western sociolinguists that language diversity was a problem, whereas language homogeneity was an advantage on the path to modernization which meant Westernization, nation building, and national unity. Thus, in the absence of an indigenous language that could be developed and promoted as a national language, the strategic solution adopted was what was

called stable diglossia (Ricento, 2000). This meant that a major European language, invariantly a former colonial language, like English, Portuguese or French, would be selected as a national language and for specialized and formal domains in a country, while the indigenous languages would serve other functions. This was the situation in many African countries.

The Second Phase: Failure of Modernization, Critical Sociolinguistics, and Access

The second LPP development phase took place approximately from the early 1970s to the

1980s. This was a period that was characterized by the macro sociopolitical events and processes, described by some as neo-colonialism (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). This was because rather than laying the ground for successful modernization and the establishment of democracies, the modernizing policies of the earlier years resulted in the new states experiencing even greater socio-economic and political dependency than they did as colonies. The criticism leveled at the modernizing policies also affected LPP activities (Ferguson, 2006; Luke, et al.,

1990; Ricento, 2000). There were social inequalities that were the result of language policy and planning decisions, particularly the continual use of ex-colonial languages in education and the consequent growth of a small elite who held political power and gained greater wealth than most people.

The failure of modernizing efforts also affected the role of languages and cultures and the ways in which they had been planned. With the growth of neo-Marxist, post-structural, and critical sociolinguistic theories, language planning came under attack. Language planning was accused of being unrealistic in its view of the field as an ideology-neutral one, and thus neglecting to recognize its role in serving the interests of elitist groups, and ignoring the interests of the rest of society. In this way, LP was seen as playing a role in promoting power imbalances and socio-economic inequalities (Ferguson, 2006). With regard to Africa, the language planning enterprise was criticized for endeavoring to shape the African national state and its linguistic

aspects after the European ideal where the notion of one nation, one language, and singular culture works (Ferguson, 2006). There were many other criticisms that led to the rethinking of the LPP field.

At the same time, autonomous linguistics continued to be challenged to the effect that it was not a viable paradigm for research in language acquisition, language use, and language change (Ricento, 2000). Idealistic concepts like linguistic competence, mother tongue, and native speaker began to be challenged. Positivistic linguistics’ tendencies, including defining language in terms of a rigid, discrete, finite form compatible with a standard grammatical structure, began to be questioned. Critics observed that although linguists claimed to be descriptive in approach, they were actually being prescriptive (Ricento, 2000). Pennycock (1994) even described this prescriptiveness as a way of standardizing education systems and thus prescribing learners’ linguistic behavior. With this contention by Pennycock (1994), we see the beginnings of thoughts that are today associated with the notion of translanguaging in bilingual education as a liberating approach. Also the importation of these Western notions of language, to language policy studies and activities came under scrutiny as having perpetuated “a series of attitudes which became ideological” (Ricento, 2000: 201).

Writing specifically about the nation states of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific (e.g.

Papua New Guinea, Indonesia), Luke, et al. (1990) problematize the value-laden character of

LPP despite its status and corpus practitioners’ claims of objectivity, ideological neutrality, and purely linguistic or social scientific interests. Luke, et al. (1990) point out that these practices were undertaken under constraints that reflected the political interests of commissioning authorities, including “regional educational authorities, national governments or international development agencies” (pp. 26-27). The writers recommend a broader look at LPP research and

practice, that is based on a theoretical understanding of specific aspects of social organization that influence or are affected by language planning involving the status and corpus planning of language (Luke, et al., 1990). Three theoretical bases of social activity, namely neo-Marxist social theory, post-structuralism discourse analysis, and critical theory, influenced their views.

Focusing on complex theoretical relationships between language, discourse, ideology, and social organization, the three theories share a “concern with political understanding and critique of concrete social practices on the terrains of class, state and power” (Luke, et al., 1990: 28).

All these factors made the LPP scholars aware of a need to rethink the LPP field, in terms of where it was and where it was going. In addition, there was criticism of LPP research prevalent at the time for its approach to the problem and its focus on only status and corpus planning, and corpus planning’s preoccupation with issues of standardization, graphization and modernization.

During the second phase, a number of scholars focused on the social, economic, and political effects of language contact. The third stage (1980s up to beginning of the 21st century,

Ricento, 2000) was characterized by critical research and suggestions of alternative theoretical orientation and rethinking of the LPP field (Luke, et al., 1990) as a consequence of the criticisms of the second period of LPP field development. These reflections and suggestions were influenced by concepts like the new world order and post modernism. Some of the important advances of the third period of LPP field development have been issues relating to language or linguistic rights as a part of human rights. Consideration of linguistic human rights has led to issues and concerns about language loss, language revitalization, and language maintenance, as well as promotion of multilingualism (Ricento, 2000).

Critical theories like neo-Marxist and Focauldian theories have led to new ways of looking at language planning and practice, and development of metaphors like ecology of language (e.g. Blackledge, 2008; Creese, et al., Eds. 2008; Malaret-Collazo, 2009; Phillipson &

Skutnabb‐Kangas, 1996;), and the LPP onion metaphor (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). One of the results of the rethinking of the LPP field is that it has become multidisciplinary and multidimensional, addressing an increased number of topics, including a description of the various levels of society at which language planning can occur. These may incorporate supra- national, national, regional, district up to local levels, and the dynamic relationships involving power and implementation that are in play among these varied levels of influence in many spheres of life, including education (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Baldauf, 2004). Ricento and

Hornberger (1996) characterize these layers of the LPP situation as the peels of an onion. The description of the inter-relationships and intersections among the activities of the layers is metaphorized as unpeeling or slicing the onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Hornberger and

Johnson, 2007). Various frameworks and LPP models have been developed as a means of talking about and doing research into LPP practices. Recognition of human agency and ideology has also led to description of LPP as a bottom-up endeavor, such as when people at the grassroots level engage in language policy and planning, which may sometimes counter that of traditionally recognized initiators of LPP, like government or other structures of authority

Defining the Study’s Theoretical Framework

Aspects of the broad field of LPP as described above have been adopted as the current study’s theoretical framework. These are mentioned briefly here, and thereafter discussed. These aspects include Ruiz’ (1984) frameworks of orientations in language planning; Ricento and

Hornberger’s (1996) metaphoric LPP onion; considerations of human agency in LPP in the form

of grassroots activities; and the classical language development framework which includes status and other types of language planning, as summarized by Baldauf (2004).

Ruiz’s (1984) Orientations in Language Planning

Referring to attitudes that influence language policy and planning in the United States, both socially and educationally, Ruiz (1984) proposed a framework within which these attitudes and basic orientations can be understood and discussed. Ruiz’ (1984) article points out that these basic orientations towards language and the role it plays in society, including education, have an influence on language planning activities anywhere in the world. Therefore, although Ruiz’ research is based on what happens in the United States, the framework can be applied in discussing LPP issues in various contexts around the world. Thus, besides being part of the theoretical framework for the entire study, this lens is also used in discussing the history of LPP in South Africa from earlier times to the present. The framework has been widely applied in other global settings (e.g. McNelly, 2015 in Honduras; DeLorme, 1999 in Kazakhstan).

Ruiz’ (1984) framework distinguishes three orientations that influence the language issue and the education of students who speak languages other than English in the United States.

Briefly, the orientations are the language-as-a-problem orientation, the language-as-a-right orientation, and the language-as-a-resource orientation. The language as-a-problem orientation sees languages, usually the L1s that must be considered together with a dominant language in the education of the minority, or minorities (as in the South African case), as a problem to be solved by a certain type of educational program. In the United States, this is English as a second language (ESL) with its various strategies, or bilingual education in its various forms depending on its goals and intended outcomes. The language-as-a-right orientation includes arguments in terms of language being a human right in favor of the minority or minoritized languages. The third orientation is the language-as-a resource orientation, which looks at all languages

coexisting in a linguistic-ecological space as resources to be utilized for the good of society, including the education of children. All these orientations are relevant parts of the LPP that also form part of the study’s theoretical framework within which the data will be interpreted.

There are studies that show an orientation of language-as-problem with regard to the use of African languages in education. Some report parental skepticism (De Klerk, 2000), and a lukewarm reception from students (Barkhuizen 2002; Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005) toward learning of, or learning in, isiXhosa at school. Others, with a language-as-a-resource orientation, lament the neglect or limited application of the educationally sound principle of mother tongue-based education for the benefit of learners (Heugh, et al., 1995). At the same time, the voluntarism or non-directive nature of the country’s language-in-education policy (LiEP) seems to have resulted in a language-as-a-problem orientation as it fostered predominant English monolingualism in education in the country (Mbatha & Pluddemann, 2004; Posel & Casale, 2011). The possibility exists, therefore, to find at the local school level, an orientation of language as problem towards both isiXhosa and English, depending on the stakeholders’ individual or collective language ideology. The ideology can be conscious or unconscious (Shohamy, 2006), but can still influence perceptions about the school’s bilingual education implementation.

At the same time, considerations of the indigenous languages as important for identity and culture as well as for helping the children improve academically reflect both a language-as- a- right, and a language-as-a-resource orientation. The concession by university students, for example, that isiXhosa as L1 is necessary and helpful for explanations of difficult aspects of courses otherwise offered in English (Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005) is reflective, and an example, of a language as a resource orientation. Such orientations are reflected in the context of the current study’s research site as well, and will be analyzed and interpreted within this framework.

The Metaphoric LPP Onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996)

Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) article was a contribution to a TESOL Quarterly issue whose theme was about the role of English language teaching (ELT) professionals in LPP. The writers look at the role of ELT in LPP by using the metaphor of an onion. After evaluating the contribution of various post-structural and post-modernist theories, also known as critical theory,

Ricento and Hornberger argue that they do not pay enough attention to multi-layer relations among the various actors involved in an LPP situation. With a goal of describing how the

English language teaching (ELT) profession is part of one such LPP situation they argue that it is not a straightforward, linear phenomenon. Rather they describe it as a whole, which consists of various actors and agents, as well as upper, middle and lower layers, in addition to processes among them. The processes are the politics that affect the LPP actors as well as the ways in which the activities and decisions of the LPP actors are interrelated and intersect between and across the various layers. Unpeeling the onion consists of describing the layers from the upper levels to mid-levels, to institutional, intergroup, interpersonal, and individual lower levels.

Using the ELT profession in the United States as an illustration, they point out that the upper layer is made up of the laws and court rules that especially affect the education of minorities. Guidelines are produced from the laws and rules and passed on to certain offices or other agents to implement them by setting standards compelling teachers and other professionals to follow the guidelines. The interactions and intersections are influenced by certain ideologies and politics, and are underscored by certain power relationships. The article points out that the

English language teaching (ELT) professionals can make choices that may influence language policies either by opposing them or by complying, thus opposing or promoting certain power structures that may be involved in policy making decisions. By the choices they make they might bring about changes in their local contexts. Using ethnographic data, Hornberger and Johnson

(2007) describe how intermediary level agencies enabled lower level local educators in two different contexts in the United States and in Bolivia to use their agency and appropriate policies to pry open implementational spaces for multilingual education in their contexts. This paper illustrates how the LPP onion can be unpeeled and sliced through so as “to reveal agentive spaces in which local actors implement, interpret, and perhaps resist policy initiatives in varying unique ways” (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007: 1). The LPP onion metaphor is used in the current study as a lens to look at the intersection of decisions and actions taken at various levels by all the actors associated with the Eastern Cape’s school bilingual education program to open spaces for the program’s implementation.

Top-down and Bottom-up LPP Practices

Language planning can be described as top-down or bottom-up practices. For many years, LPP was considered a top-down, rational process in which policy makers at the top make decisions about policy, and the people at different levels of authority, simply implement it as it occurs in official documents (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Shohamy, 2006). However, in practice, individuals and groups, consciously or unconsciously, make sense of a policy at different policy levels, and according to their own language ideologies and discourses. As a result a de jure (legislated) policy is often enacted in ways that people understand it and that suit them in their local contexts. This constitutes de facto policy (Shohamy, 2006). In this way language planning is a social activity. Consequently, as Shohamy (2006), and other researchers

(e.g., Freeman, 1998; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) point out, there is no unidirectional and simple acceptance and implementation of language planning.

The Classical View of LPP Practices

Although today LPP has grown into a broad, multi-disciplinary field, its classical language-planning framework that includes status and other types of language planning is still

relevant to studies that involve interventions that bring changes to a language or group of languages. For the current study’s theoretical framework, Baldauf’s (2004) definition and summary of these types of planning is adopted. Bilingual education practices are part of what

Baldauf (2004) and other researchers describe as interventions brought about in a language or languages in order to change or direct its/their use. Baldauf (2004) describes four types of interventions. Status planning concerns the social standing of a language, including attitudes toward the language(s). It consists of the creation of conditions to increase or alter the uses of the language(s). Corpus planning has to do with improvements in the structure of a language, and includes preparation or revision of orthography and creation of technical terminology for the language concerned. Language-in-education planning has to do with the learning of, or in, a language, and can also fall under acquisition planning. Acquisition planning is included as part of language-in-education planning here because it largely involves arrangements for a language to be learned, either as a second language or as a threatened L1 for its maintenance and for control of language shift. The last one is prestige planning, which is concerned with the image of a language. It is related to the status of a language in the sense that it seeks to change attitudes towards a language. And it is relevant to the study especially in view of the skepticism mentioned in Chapter 1 in relation to education based on isiXhosa, the major language of the

Eastern Cape.

Language Policy and Planning (LPP) in South Africa: Brief History and Current State

In order to understand the policy context for the bilingual education program that is the focus of the current study, the history of LPP in South Africa up to the present is discussed.

Some of the prevailing issues that are rooted in this historical context include skepticism towards any idea of an African mother tongue-related program of education, as well as the ideology and

discourse about English knowledge and proficiency as a marker of intelligence, prestigious education, and means of social and economic upward mobility.

Some of the literature that deals with this topic generally discusses the LPP situation in

South Africa in four periods, namely, Dutchification, Anglicization, Afrikanerization and Post-

Apartheid multilingual policy stage (Kamwangamalu, 2008; Orman, 2008). This section will follow the same chronological recount of language in education policies in South Africa.

Dutchification and the Anglicization Period

Dutchification refers to the period when Dutch was imposed on all peoples living in the

Cape Colony at the time and represented the first linguistic hegemonization in the history of

South Africa. However, its link with the current South African LPP situation is limited to the history of the development of Afrikaans, one of the country’s eleven official languages.

Anglicization refers to the beginnings of English hegemony in South Africa, and its influence has been a consistent thread in the LPP situation up to the present day. The period of

Dutchification in the Cape of Good Hope lasted from 1652 to 1795, almost a century and a half, until the British took the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch (Kamwangamalu, 2008). It was during the second British colonial occupation that the entire region became known as the Cape

Colony. In a characteristically language-as-a-problem orientation (Ruiz, 1984), the British sought to establish their dominance by an assimilationist policy of intense cultural and linguistic

Anglicization, especially towards the Dutch, later Afrikaans, language and culture (Orman,

2008). Referred to as a kombuis taal (kitchen language), the Cape-Dutch language, and later emergent Afrikaans language and its associated culture were ridiculed as, among other things, a language that had no literature, science, paintings or innovations and of no value besides the home and local environment. It is said that even some of the speakers of the Cape

Dutch/Afrikaans varieties believed this and their and leaders tried to persuade people to accept

the English language and its culture, over their own language and culture (Alexander, 2003).

Some of the negative attitudes towards Dutch and emergent Afrikaans of that period are similar to negative attitudes toward African languages today, especially in education, provoking reluctance to use African languages in the education of speakers of these languages.

The main feature of the Anglicization period can be described as Dutch/Afrikaans-as-a- problem for the English, and English-as-a-problem for the Dutch and, later, Afrikaans speakers.

Only in 1925 did the British accept Afrikaans as a second official language in South Africa. This heralded in a long period in which the illusion of South Africa as a bilingual country dominated, while the Khoi-San and African languages were ignored, neglected and marginalized (Broeder, et al., 2002; Alexander, 2004). This occurred despite the fact that some of the African indigenous languages, notably isiZulu and isiXhosa, were and still are, the first two largest of all languages in the country in terms of the numbers of speakers (Barnes, 2004; Broeder, et al., 2002;

MacFarlane, 2008) This illusion was perpetuated and lived on under the hegemony of English and Afrikaans until 1994, with the advent of the new democratic South Africa.

During the period of Anglicization, missionaries played a big role in the education and thus language planning of the African people, including amaXhosa. Intensive missionary activity in South Africa began around 1795 (Lewis & Steyn, 2003) with the first British occupation of the Cape (Kamwangamalu, 2008). Missionaries established schools for African people partly because they wanted to bring Western enlightenment to them under the umbrella of “the British government’s stance of benevolent colonialism” (Lewis & Steyn, 2003:103), and also, perhaps more importantly for the purposes of their missionary work, so that people would be able to read the Bible and understand Christianity for themselves. Thus evangelization and education went hand in hand (Lewis & Steyn, 2003).

Missionaries also embarked on the development of the languages of the people among whom they were working, like the isiXhosa language (Barnes, 2004). For isiXhosa in particular, this consisted of developing orthography and committing the language to writing (Pahl (Ed.),

1989). It also included producing grammars and dictionaries, Bible translations, and, among other things, encouraging isiXhosa speakers to produce literature in their language and other writings in English (e.g. Soga, 1931).

The language was taught as a subject. Later, mother tongue instruction was introduced up to the fifth year of schooling. But even this monolingual L1-based education did not go very far, as English was the language of instruction from Grade 6 onwards (Broeder, et al., 2002). While assimilation to western culture did not have complete success, due to various factors, it heralded the deficit attitude with which the some members of the educated isiXhosa speaking middle class

(and other Africans) looked at their language and aspects of their culture. In this and other ways of English hegemonization, the foundation was laid for attaching importance to knowledge of

English as a marker of civilization and status, and later as a means of social and economic advancement (Alexander, 2004). Just as some of the Dutch-Afrikaans speakers became used to looking down upon their language as the British language policy intended (Alexander, 2003),

African people were also influenced to a great extent by Westernization which had a considerable impact on their attitude to their languages. This influence is still part of the cause for skepticism about involvement of African languages in education. Whilst the Dutch, and later

Afrikaans language and culture, were preserved through a direct struggle by its social actors,

Black people have not put up much of a struggle for their languages. The colonial frame of mind as well as the economic and social advancement advantage of English and its status as a world language (Barnes, 2004), still causes some middle class parents to want English medium

immersion for their children, in some cases to the exclusion of their mother tongue (Barnes,

2004; De Klerk, 2002; Posel & Casale, 2011). Alexander (2004) asserts that this neglect of the

African languages was also due to the Apartheid Nationalist government’s deliberate decisions to provide far less funding for any applied – or socio-linguistic work related to the African languages than for the development and intellectualization of Afrikaans.

One saving factor for African languages in both semi-urban and rural areas was that because of limited practical contact with white people and culture, the assimilationist influences were restricted. So, isiXhosa and the other related languages (so-called dialects) and the associated cultures have endured, and are still deeply rooted in the minds of their speakers as a major part of their identity, especially in the rural areas where there is a high level of linguistic and cultural homogeneity. This presents a context where, with the right implementation of the language–as-a-resource oriented language–in-education policy of the country, and its adequate explanation to communities, including parents and teachers, bilingual education between isiXhosa and English can be easy to introduce, support and maintain, especially if research-based information is disseminated.

Language Policy and Planning under Apartheid: Afrikanerization

Although the Afrikaners of the Apartheid regime introduced, via the Bantu Education system, the teaching of African children in their languages until the end of the last class in primary education (Grade 8), the motivation was not educational. It was rather a perpetuation of their own policy of separate development and of marginalizing the African people in education and all other significant spheres of South African economic and political life (Broeder, 2002;

Orman, 2008). The Afrikanerization of the South African society became more intensified after

May 1961, when British rule ended in South Africa. The Republic’s constitution, under the

Afrikaner regime, continued the focus on English and Afrikaans, and the marginalization of the

African languages.

In order to perpetuate Apartheid’s policy of separate development, the Afrikaner nationalist government created independent states within South Africa on racial-ethno-linguistic lines. In these homelands, Apartheid’s language policy and planning can be likened to a language-as-a-resource orientation, if looked at superficially from the point of view that mother tongue education was introduced from Grades 1 to 8 (the entire primary school) for each linguistically segregated homeland. But this language education policy and planning was a perpetuation of Apartheid’s policy of segregation by means of which Black people were supposed to develop separately under a sub-standard, very poorly funded education system

(Marjorie, 1982). Black people perceived its objective as being to keep them from knowing

English sufficiently for them to partake in the country’s socio-economic system and to have a share in its economic advantages (Banda, 2000). As Banda (2000) explains that the Apartheid enforced L1 education was to reduce English knowledge and advance that of Afrikaans, this language planning can therefore be described as an apparent language-as-a resource orientation clothed in a wider political problem-orientation. Its consequence was that for the Africans mother tongue education led to a language-as-problem orientation towards their own mother tongues.

Ricento (2005) describes a similar failure of the resource orientation to produce expected results in the U.S. where the “language as a resource metaphor [fails to advance] broad-based support for the teaching, maintenance and use of minority languages in the U.S.” (p. 348).

Referring to attempts to promote and protect heritage languages in the U.S., Ricento (2000) suggests a solution that is relevant to the situation of South Africa’s African languages and to

attempts to implement bilingual education programs in the country. He says, “wider and more sustained popular support for such programs will require significant modifications in the underlying values and ideologies about the status and role of languages other than English in education and public life” (p. 348).

An unintended result of the Apartheid’s political strategy was further corpus planning of the African languages. Learning and teaching materials were produced in isiXhosa, and other

African languages in the areas where they were spoken. The result is that to date there are terminologies that were produced in the languages under the various departments of education of the time, among other materials. If still available, these can be updated to meet the need for more

African language L1 materials for utilization in the production of bilingual learning and teaching materials.

However, on the whole the mother tongue education policy of Bantu education was not appreciated, as it was introduced more for political than educational reasons (Banda, 2000;

Marjorie, 1982). Consequently, as studies show (e.g. De Klerk, 2000) isiXhosa (and other

African language) speaking middle class parents are skeptical about L1-based education, seeing it as a perpetuation of the Bantu education system.

In urban areas, outside the Bantustans or homelands, but on the periphery of the cities, black education was under the Department of Education and Training (DET), another Apartheid creation (Broeder, 2002). This department perpetuated an anomalous dual-medium education system whereby African language speaking students had to learn 50 percent in English and 50 percent in Afrikaans, neither of which was their mother tongue (Alexander, 2004). Afrikaans gained a lot of unpopularity, as it was difficult for most African people to pass. It was not until

1976, with the Soweto uprising against Afrikaans, that a definite resistance identity and a

significant step towards liberation occurred (Broeder, et al., 2002; Orman, 2008). Thereafter, education became a kind of English immersion from the fifth year of primary school through matric in secondary education.

Thus even the 50-50 kind of bilingual education forced upon the Black learners in the

DET schools was between English and Afrikaans, not between an African language, the students’ L1 and English, the preferred L2 among Africans (Marjorie, 1982). This, as well as its attempted solution after the 1976 SOWETO uprisings, namely English immersion from Grade 5, still marginalized the students’ mother tongues. Thus, still in this area, there was and is no implementation, and thus no knowledge of bilingual education between African languages and

English, and the educational benefits it could and can have for Black learners.

Language Policy and Planning in Post-Apartheid South Africa

South Africa became a democratic state in 1994, with a new constitution that, in its promotion of multilingualism, also declared nine major African languages as official languages along with English and Afrikaans (Posel & Casale, 2011). The true multilingual nature of South

Africa was made visible for the first time in the history of the country. The full names, as opposed to the colonial truncated forms, of the African languages are presented and listed in

Chapter 1, Section 6 of the 1996 Constitution. The full names of these languages are: Sepedi,

SiSwati, Sesotho, Setswana, isiXhosa, isiZulu, isiNdebele, Xitsonga and Tshivenda (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996).

In naming the languages with their full names as opposed to the colonially truncated forms, the constitution was a response to a long felt need for this recognition by some speakers of the languages, including those who were involved in the LPP activities, even during earlier regimes. In the case of isiXhosa, this need and desire was implicitly demonstrated in writing as early as the year 1931 in a publication by J.H. Soga (1931), titled, The AmaXhosa: Life and

Customs. AmaXhosa is the full designation for isiXhosa-speaking people. He refers to the language as isiXhosa, and uses full forms for other related truncated forms like isiThembu

(instead of the wrong form, ‘Thembu’), and so forth. Pumlani Sibula, a lecturer and language practitioner and expert at Stellenbosch University, Western Cape, South Africa, makes the same point even more strongly in this Facebook post:

The NAME of the LANGUAGE: “The full name of the language is isiXhosa. The full form of this name is used, and is capable of being used, in all contexts and languages instead of the non-developmental and non-respect-oriented stem only form. …It is a significant aspect of, and contribution to, the development of this language to change from the misnomer, “Xhosa,” to the use of the full form of the name, isiXhosa, even when speaking English, Afrikaans, etc.” This applies to other languages as well: isiZulu, isiNdebele, . . . {Taken from “Revised Spelling and Orthography Rules for isiXhosa (ISBN: 978-0-621-38251-8) of 1978; page 130}

The government committed itself in the constitution to the development of all languages of South Africa, and to the development and promotion of the African languages, which had been underdeveloped and marginalized in the past (Broeder, et al., 2002; Orman, 2008). In 1997 the new language-in education policy (LiEP) was also passed. It provides a basis for bilingual and multilingual education (Barnes, 2004; Braam, 2012; Koch, et al., 2009; Pluddemann, et al.,

2005). The new language policy and planning emphasizes respect for all languages in the country, including the smaller, heritage and religious languages, and the so-called ‘dialects’, that were not made official (Alexander, 1997). This language-as-a-resource attitude was born out of the ANC’s policy of non-racialism and pluralism (Orman, 2008) which emphasize reconciliation, equity in education and all spheres of life, and unity-in-diversity, for the building of unity in the rainbow nation.

Bilingual education can be employed easily in many schools in South Africa, as the nine

African official languages are each spoken predominantly in large, geographically well- demarcated provinces (Van der Merwe, 1995). The implication is that it should be easy to

introduce bilingual education in many schools in the country without having to make decisions about which L1 to include as a medium of instruction together with English, or with a wide linguistic and cultural diversity in one school. This near homogeneous situation mostly occurs in the rural areas, which context is the main focus of the current study. The following map shows the distribution of the languages in the nine provinces of the country:

Map of Official Languages of South Africa

Figure 2-1. Map of Official Languages. SA. From: http://www.google.com/search?q=Map+of+official+languages+of+South+Africa&rlz Retrieved May 31, 2015. Note: Not all the names of the languages on the map are accurately presented on the map. This is corrected as follows: IsiXhosa, isiZulu, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, SiSwati, Sesotho, Setswana, Sepedi.

Current LiEP Context

The current LiEP provides for home-language based bilingual and multilingual education. When it was passed, the LiEP envisaged that being made languages of learning and

teaching, as well as being studied as subjects would enhance the African languages. For instance, in the Eastern Cape Province the medium of instruction in isiXhosa government schools (in rural and semi-urban areas) would be isiXhosa, which would also be studied as a subject. The first additional language, an L2 to be added later, would be English, and the elective third additional language could be Afrikaans, or another African language that is also spoken in the province, namely Sesotho. It was envisaged that in English medium public schools, the ex-Model C schools that used to be exclusively for whites, students could choose either Afrikaans or isiXhosa in the position of first or second additional language, or Sesotho, if they liked.

It seems therefore that the evident interpretation of the LiEP’s provision is not bilingual or multilingual education in the sense of the actual teaching of subjects, like math, science, social studies, etc., in two languages. The first understanding seems to be the number of languages a learner studies at school. The idea of home-language (a term that seems to replace mother tongue) is that this is a language that a child knows and grows up speaking, which should therefore be the medium of instruction, as well as a learning area or subject. The bilingualness or multilingualness of the education consists of the addition of another language, or two other languages, to be studied as subjects at different levels, namely as first and second additional languages. This idea of learning more than one language as school subjects, which seems be seen as the same thing as bilingual (or multilingual) education, may be one of the reasons it has taken the country so long to implement bilingual education in the sense of learning in two languages

(Garcia, 2005).

The apparent misunderstanding explained above may be one of the reasons for the general complaint that the LiEP stops short of providing guidelines for the implementation of bilingual or multilingual education (Alcock, 2009; Alexander, 2006). The lack of guidelines

seems to leave a loophole for schools and their parents-based school governing bodies (SGBs) to choose whether or not to offer the African languages as home languages. In this regard, the tentativeness and voluntarist spirit of the LiEP (Alexander, 2006) in this regard has led to the up- to-now popular option of continuing to marginalize the African L1s, as many school administrations including the SGBs chose English as the home language. It has thus allowed schools and SGBs in rural and semi-urban areas (the latter are the so-called locations or townships next to cities in SA) to choose English and name it a home language. Therefore the provincial local African language, like isiXhosa, in the Eastern Cape, becomes the children’s first additional language. This anomalous situation means that the L2 takes the position of the

L1, and the L1 is offered as if it is the L2, mostly from Grade 4, but even from Grade 1 in some schools (Posel & Casale, 2011).

Here we see how the decisions of the inner layer, the institutional layer consisting of schools and their SGBS, intersect with the intentions of the upper layer of the metaphorical LPP onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996): The LiEP as an outer layer of the LPP onion, displays a language-as-a resource orientation, but in a way that does not give a sufficiently defined way of appropriating it at the inner layers of the onion, namely the schools with their SGBs. The LiEP thus creates a loophole for the development of a language-as-a-problem orientation towards the children’s L1s, like isiXhosa, prompting the situation where some isiXhosa speaking middle class parents (De Klerk, 2000) and university students (Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005) prefer English only or English immersion education for children from Grade R upwards. No wonder the local institutions, the schools and their SGBs, in their own appropriation of the LiEP, adopt a contradictory approach from that envisaged by both the constitution and the LiEP.

The skepticism and opposition towards mother tongue education reported in some studies

(e.g. De Klerk, 2002; Posel & Sale, 2011) that was reflected in the choices just described demonstrates that the language-as-a-problem orientation exists. This problem-orientation towards the primary languages of learners and its resultant choice of English above L1, has up to now limited the effect that the resource-orientation of the LiEP should have had with regard to education. The choice of English immersion ironically places this language, in turn, in a position of language-as-a-problem, as it leads to the lack of equity in education for learners who are speakers of isiXhosa (and other African languages). It affects the accessibility of education for large numbers of rural and semi-rural learners, resulting in poor academic performance, high failure rates, and large numbers of students dropping out of school. As has been pointed out, concern about this state of affairs in the children’s education has led to pointing at mother tongue education as a necessity, along with the need for the children to learn and know English

(Alexander, 2003). Bilingual education has long been advocated as a major intervention to bring this kind of equity and balance to the education of the children (Alexander, 2003; Barnes, 2004;

Heugh, 2006). However, there is still a gap in knowledge about which type of bilingual education program can bring best practices in education to the country and to the Eastern Cape

Province. The necessity as well as the possibility of bilingual education implementation and practice in South Africa, especially for the rural and semi-urban school population, necessitates as part of the broader contextualization of the study, further elucidation of some theoretical aspects of bilingual education as well as bilingual education practices in the African context, which is the next focus of this literature review.

Bilingual Education in Africa

This part of the literature review looks at what has been done in relation to bilingual education in the African continent. Bilingual education is a complex phenomenon that has been

implemented in various ways and in various contexts around the world (Alidou, et al., 2006;

Baker, 2011; O. Garcia, 2008; Hornberger, 2000; McNelly, 2014). With recognition of the fact that its full definition takes a number of factors into consideration (Robertson, 1995), bilingual education can be defined as learning and teaching in two languages (Alidou, et al., 2006;

Freeman, 1998; E. Garcia, 2005). Literature on bilingual education in Africa will be discussed on the basis of already existing knowledge about bilingual education in the global context, particularly the United States where considerable research on bilingual education has been done.

It is necessary therefore to include in this section, where relevant, brief discussion of some theoretical aspects of bilingual education as globally known.

Why is Bilingual Education Necessary in Africa?

The most prevalent educational reason for bilingual education is to provide accessible, quality education for learners who speak languages that are not the dominant language of education in their context, and for whom that language is a second or even a foreign language. In some contexts, a community may feel the need for their children to learn both ecologically co- existent languages, because of a need to know both, and so that neither language is marginalized.

With regard to the continent of Africa, the predominant outcry is for mother-tongue education because of the multilingual nature of most countries in the continent (Bamgbose,

1991). The multilingual situation is made more complex by the presence of ex-colonial languages like English, and French (e.g. Brock-Utne, et al., 2010; Omoniyi, 2007), and the less widespread Portuguese, as in Mozambique (Chimbutane, 2011; Stroud, 1999). Although language choice in education affects all aspects of life and development in the continent

(Bamgbose, 1991; Basimolodi, 2001; Batibo, 2001, 2005; Hookoomsing, 2001; Abdulaziz, 2003;

& Djite, 2008), submersion in a second language (L2) or foreign language (FL) is still the order of the day in many African countries (Alexander, 2009; Nkosana, 2011). Submersion is the

teaching of learners using an L2 or FL as language of learning and teaching (LOLT) without sufficient assistance and scaffolding (as Oponku-Amankwa, 2009, found in Ghana). It has the effect of one’s being submerged in deep water and left to swim across on one’s own regardless of whether one can swim or not. Submersion is different from immersion which can be structured, and in which learning can be supported by scaffolding and other means (Roberts,

1995) in the ex-colonial languages.

It is important to note that in Africa, submersion affects many children educationally. So, there is a need for a change from the colonial mindset that Bamgbose (1991) calls the inheritance situation, to embrace African language-based bilingual education (Alidou, et al, 2006; Benson,

2005). This colonial mindset of preferring a second or foreign language to indigenous local

African languages applies widely to Africa, and to South Africa. For bilingual education to be accepted by the majority, there is a need for a change in the general colonial mindset. Reference to arguments for a change of attitude in favor of African mother tongue based education is made because the same attitudinal change is necessary for the acceptance and implementation of bilingual education in Africa and in South Africa. In turn, successful bilingual education implementation can bring about a change in the African society with regard to attaching value to their languages. This is because while it is necessary and a sound educational principle for learners to learn in their mother tongue, knowledge of the second language, usually English, but also French, and Portuguese in some African countries, is desirable for instrumental purposes of the language. Bilingual education therefore can provide opportunities of learning both, and learning in both, the learner’s L1 and the L2 for content academic knowledge as well as for biliteracy and bilingual proficiency development.

The main goal of bilingual education is to make education accessible to the learners for improvement of their academic performance, which does not happen effectively when they have to contend with an unfamiliar academic load in a second language that is not yet sufficiently familiar to them (Barnes, 2004; Brock-Utne, 2007; Obondo, 2008; Qorro, 1999). However, not all educationists or language and education experts express the need for going further than monolingualistic mother tongue education. The most urgent issue about which language policy and language and education experts in Africa agree is the need for a type of mother tongue-based education, especially in the early stages of a child’s cognitive development ((IDRC.CA, 2009;

Omoniyi, 2007).

Although not mentioned specifically in some of the literature on the desirability of the employment of African languages in education, the need for bilingual education is implied. The literature acknowledges the necessity for incremental acquisition of English (or another ex- colonial language like Portuguese, French) as well as knowledge and proficiency of the language. With this acknowledgement, bilingual education is seen in some of the literature as one of the ways, if not the best way, of implementing mother tongue-based education for the

African child’s academic benefit (Alexander, 2009). This academic benefit includes the linguistic goal of ultimately acquiring knowledge of, as well as, literacy and proficiency in the

L2 or FL, like English (Alexander, 2009) alongside that of the mother tongue.

The reasons for the necessity of some kind of bilingual education (whether directly expressed or not, as the author argues above) can be summarized as follows: First and foremost, there is concern about the high failure rate among the majority of African language speaking learners, and their high dropout rate from schools and universities (Qorro, 1999). Among many possible factors, the language in education question is considered the most serious. Bilingual

education, as a form of mother tongue based-education is seen as a possible intervention

(Alexander, 2009; Alidou, et al., 2006; Heugh, 2001; Kamwangamalu, 2008; Probyn, 2008)

There is an abundance of literature that shows that children learn best when they learn unknown concepts in their mother tongue rather than in a second language with which they have little or no familiarity (e.g. Alexander 1999; Cummins, 1992 [comments on Ramirez’ research];

IDRC.CA, 2009; Oponku-Amankwa, 2009).

Considering the academic and linguistic reasons for the need for mother tongue based education in Africa, as well as the reasons behind what Bamgbose (1991) describes as the inheritance situation, a summary statement can be made about the need for bilingual education in Africa, as follows: The main purpose of bilingual education is to make education accessible to children in both their mother tongue and the inevitably necessary ex-colonial second language, and to enable them to ultimately develop biliteracy and bilingual proficiency.

Research has also shown, internationally and in Africa, that knowledge of, and literacy in, English as a second language are best acquired on the basis of literacy in the mother tongue

(Probyn, 2008). Bilingual education is therefore desirable also for effective acquisition of

English (Alidou, et al., 2006; Banda, 2000). Another reason for desirability of a mother tongue- based education in Africa, which can lead to advocacy for bilingual education as proficiency in

English as a global language is always necessary, is the promotion of the African languages, some of which are mere national languages, with insignificant roles in the education and life of their people (e.g. Setswana in Botswana, see Nkosana, 2011; Nyati-Ramahobo, 1991). L1 based education is also seen to be necessary for education’s relevance to learners’ and families’ culture and sense of identity (Ouane & Glanz, 2012) and other ideological and socio-economic concerns

(IDRC.CA, 2009; Probyn, 2008). These needs that have been stated in favor of L1 education, are relevant for bilingual education too.

Within South Africa, a few studies have shown that learning in an unfamiliar language has been of little benefit for many African language-speaking students (Benson, 2002; Heugh,

2001; Koch, et al., 2009). The limitation of learning in an unfamiliar language is considered as one of the causes of the high failure and school dropout rates among African students (Thwala,

2006). This situation is worse in the rural and semi-urban areas of South Africa where the learners are not in daily contact with English, particularly in the Eastern Cape Province where matric results remain the poorest, compared to most other provinces. This underperformance by the matric learners is identified by some as originating in the exclusion or limited employment of mother tongue education at lower grades (cf Alexander, 2000).

The problematization of the limited use of learners’ L1s at school and the proposal of bilingual education as a form of L1 involvement as part of the solution, point at the recognition of the necessity of both the L1 and the ex-colonial language, like English (Alexander, 2000), for the effective education of the majority of African children. This recognition necessitates a consideration of the most effective ways in which both the L1 (e.g. isiXhosa) and the L2 (e.g.

English) can be employed in the bilingual education classroom for successful learning and teaching of content subjects and development of biliteracy and bilingual proficiency. One such a classroom strategy that is relevant to education in bi-/multi-lingual contexts in the world, and in

Africa in general, and South Africa in particular, is the practice of translanguaging which has only recently received attention as a bilingual or multilingual education practice (Canagarajah,

2011; Creese & Blackwell, 2010; Y. Freeman, D. Freeman, & Ebe, 2014; O. Garcia, & Wei,

2014).

Translanguaging: An Essential Bilingual Classroom Practice in Africa

The foregoing discussions have revealed two important goals of bilingual education in

Africa with its language and education issues. The goals are educational equity, and successful cognitive and linguistic development for the African child. The former will be achieved by making education more accessible and flexible for the learners. The latter will be seen in academic performance improvement, and biliteracy and bilingual proficiency development. Both goals need to be achieved by greater rather than lesser employment of the mother tongue (e.g.

Bamgbose, 1991; Pluddemann, 2010), alongside the ex-colonial second language, like English

(Alexander, 2000). This need for L1 as basis for success in education for most African learners in Africa brings the discussion in this section to the concept of translanguaging.

Translanguaging is a form of complex cross-language transfer. However, unlike instances of identifiable L1 on L2 or L2 on L1 influence (Odlin, 2003), translanguaging is not one- directional. Both the L1 and L2 mesh into each other, at various degrees of learner development, taking each other’s features in an integrated way that goes beyond monolingualistic consciousness. Translanguaging is thus suitable for the emergent bilingual African learner who needs to focus more on learning than on rigid accuracy in a language system.

Again, translanguaging is different from simple code switching, which consists of language users’ alternation between one language system and another in speech (Wei, 2011). A caveat here is the fact that code switching can be a form of translanguaging (de Jong, 2011). In code switching speakers switch languages as they speak, recognizing that at one point they are speaking the L1, for instance, and at another the L2. Therefore, although code switching entails the use of two languages, it is still monolingualistic in that the two languages are consciously recognizable as two systems (Creese & Blackwell, 2010). Although it is the use of two languages, code switching is an instructional and learning strategy that adheres to the

monolingualistic language separation approach to bilingual teaching and learning (Creese &

Blackwell, 2010).

Translanguaging, on the other hand, is the dynamic, synergistic use of all languages in ecological relationship in a bi-/multi-lingual environment as well as all semiotic resources to mediate complex social and cognitive situations (O. Garcia & Wei, 2014). The term was first coined by Cen Williams in 1994 to refer to the integrated use of diverse languages that form linguistic repertoires of speakers/users in a multi-lingual context (Wei, 2011). The integrated use results in an integrated system of linguistic ability to construct and mediate meaning and to enact identity. “The ‘trans’ prefix emphasizes the fluid practice that goes beyond (transcends) socially constructed language systems and structures to engage diverse multiple meaning-making systems and subjectivities” (Wikipedia, December 29, 2015). Translanguaging is thus a kind of fulfillment of Pennycock’s (1994) apparent advocacy for language use fluidity in education. This advocacy is reflected in Pennycock’s (1994) criticism of descriptive linguistics’ rigid description of language; Pennycock (1994) and others saw such rigidity as a form of prescriptiveness aimed at standardizing education systems and thus prescribing learners’ linguistic behavior. With its fluidity of language use for easy mediation and negotiation of meaning, translanguaging is seen as the best strategy for language use in the bilingual classroom (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). It is also fitting in the bilingual education classes for African students, not only to be allowed to be practiced as a natural occurrence typical of bi-/multilingual situations, but also to be taught directly as a strategy of learning, as Canagarajah (2011) suggets.

Bilingual Education Program Types

Existing literature on bilingual education program types is based mainly on what has been done in the United States. A distinction has been made between models of bilingual education, and types of bilingual education programs (Freeman, 1998, referencing Hornberger,

1991). Models are more over-arching and abstract. Programs types are the different ways in which ELLs are given bilingual education in specific contexts. Models are based on language planning goals and ideologies about linguistic and cultural diversity in society. According to the language goals and ideological orientations, three main types of models are identified (Baker,

2011; Hornberger, 1991; Robertson, 1995). They are the transitional, maintenance, and enrichment models. The transitional model in the U.S. has a main goal of getting minority language speaking students to quickly know English and transition to English mainstream classrooms as soon as possible; linguistic and cultural assimilation are additional objectives. The second model type is the maintenance model, which seeks to maintain students’ primary languages, strengthen their cultural identity, and to affirm civil rights. The third model is the enrichment model, which has as its goal the development of minority languages, cultural pluralism, and social autonomy.

Programs under the transitional model are targeted at English language learners (ELLs), that is students who are speakers of other languages and are therefore learning English as second language. Under transitional model programs students are taught for a short time in their primary language or first language or mother tongue (the L1), in such a way as to enable them to quickly transition to English immersion classes. In maintenance program models, which also target

ELLs, students are encouraged to maintain their L1s. Programs under the enrichment model encourage not only the maintenance, but also the development of minority languages.

Dual-language bilingual programs are the most common enrichment programs in the

United States. They are also called two-way bilingual, bilingual immersion, two-way immersion, and developmental bilingual programs. One of their main characteristics is that they offer bilingual education to both English majority students and minority language students, in other

words English L1 and English L2 students (Collier & Thomas, 2014). Such programs are amenable to social justice as students learn to know and respect one another’s languages, e.g.

Spanish by English L1s, and English by Spanish L1 students. Another type of dual medium bilingual education programs are the immersion bilingual education programs of Canada, prompted by a dual concern for about the marginalization of the French language and for assuring English-speaking students of the exposure to French, which is also a world language like English (Cummins, 1998; Genesse & Lindholm-Leary, 2008). In the context of Europe these dual language programs are offered in some schools, such as in Luxembourg (Beardsmore,

1993).

The dual-language programs are evidently approached with a language as a resource orientation (Ruiz 1984). In letting majority and minority language students learn one another’s language, at 50-50 level, the programs are amenable to social justice as students learn to know and respect one another’s languages, e.g. Spanish by English L1s, and English by Spanish L1 students (e.g., Freeman, 1998). With this global understanding of bilingual education, the discussion now turns to more details of the situation in Africa in general, and South Africa, in particular.

In the context of Africa and South Africa, the African languages concerned are in a different position than the languages of minority communities in the United States. In spite of their having much larger numbers of speakers than ex-colonial languages, many African indigenous languages have been relegated to a marginal position (Obondo, 2008; Heugh, 2001).

The account of the LPP situation in South Africa includes a history of this kind of marginalization, which has placed indigenous African and Khoi languages at a disadvantage in the country for centuries. For this reason, the term used in this study for such languages is that

which is used commonly in South Africa in reference to the African languages. This is the term

“previously marginalized” or “previously disadvantaged” languages.

However, because of their continuing marginalization, despite their constitutional status as official languages in contexts like South Africa, these languages will be simply referred to as the marginalized or disadvantaged languages. The author’s argument is that in South Africa, for instance, the African languages are not minority languages, but they continue to be marginalized in many spheres of life, including in education. The term “marginalized” will incorporate those that are not official languages in other countries, like Mozambique (Chimbutane, 2011; Stroud,

1999; Terra, 2014). Or even the term “minoritized” languages (e.g. De Palma, 2014) may qualify since, despite their official status, African languages, like isiXhosa, are being relegated to a minor role or status in the education system in the country, though many are robust in terms of the numbers of speakers.

Figure 2-2. Graph of Official Languages of S.A. From http://engl360.pbworks.com/w/page/18970544/SouthAfricanEnglish Retrieved November 9, 2015

Figure2-2 shows the percentage of isiXhosa speaking people compared to all the other ten official languages of the country. It illustrates the point made here that it is counter-intuitive for the language to be called a minority language in its own country where the language has the second largest number of speakers, the first being another African language, isiZulu.

Bilingual Education Models in Africa: Early and Late Exit Models

In the current study bilingual education is defined as learning in two languages, namely the African L1 and English or another L2. However, there is very little practice of bilingual education in Africa, as Obondo’s (2008) overview of bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa informs us. The scarcity of bilingual education implementation in Africa is clearly demonstrated in the contents of this paper in which Obondo (2008) starts of by stating bilingual education related objectives of the overview, but covers mostly monolingual L1 based education issues.

Most writings about the language and education issue in Africa advocate explicitly for the employment of indigenous African languages in education (e.g. Bamgbose, 1991), and bilingual education implications can only be drawn from the fact that some writers acknowledge the inevitable need for knowledge of the former colonial languages like English, French and

Portuguese. This need is because the ex-colonial languages have become part of the linguistic repertoire of the African states in which they are spoken, and are important as global languages

(e.g. English in South Africa as pointed out by, among others, Alexander, 1991).

As a consequence of the above, there is scarcity of literature on actual bilingual education programs in Africa. Consequently, literature on some interesting mother tongue-based education programs will be considered to see what inferences can be made to bilingual education models, had these L1 based programs been bilingual education programs. Such programs are discussed below. A review of the available literature suggests three types of L1 education models, namely early exit, late exit and dual language models. In the L1 early exit model, learners are taught in

their mother tongue only for the first three or four years of their schooling. The L2 is introduced in an elementary form from Grade 1, and is added incrementally at each next grade level only as a learning subject. However, already after Grade 3 or 4 the children are introduced to the L2 as a language of learning and teaching (LOLT), i.e. as a medium of instruction (MOI). A late exit model is one in which the children learn in the L1 until the sixth, and sometimes the eighth grades.

One late exit L1 based education program to which Obondo (2008) refers as bilingual education, is an experiment that was undertaken in Nigeria to compare the L1 early exit and late exit models. This is the Ile-Ife Project, fully known as “the Ife Six-Year Primary Project

(ISYPP)” (Omoniyi, 2007: 543). Yoruba-speaking children were placed in an experimental and a control group. The former were taught all subjects in Yoruba, their L1 for 6 years without being pulled out after the first three years into an English program. English was a learning area or subject to be learned. The control group was taught in Yoruba for the first three years (early-exit model), and then in English for the next three years (Alexander, 2006); Obondo, 2008; &

Omoniyi, 2007). Children in the experimental groups, on being evaluated, performed very well in all subjects, including science, math, Yoruba and English, etc. (Obondo, 2008). Though it was an L1 monolingual education, the Ile-Ife Project This Ford Foundation-funded experiment showed the effectiveness of mother tongue-based education in which the children were kept learning in their mother tongue for a longer time (Obondo, 2008; Omoniyi, 2007). Though it ended when the funding stopped, the experiment showed the effectiveness of this type of bilingual education program (Alexander, 2006; & Omoniyi, 2007)

Another model which fits the description of late exit model has been reported in the context of Mali (Tamari, 2009). In this program, local languages like Bamana (or Bambara) are

used in many schools mostly up to the sixth or seventh grade, and to the ninth grade in others, with a few doing so up to the eleventh and twelfth grades, alongside Arabic. Tamari (2009) visited 14 madrasa schools (i.e. schools that are meant for use of Arabic as both a language of learning and teaching (LOLT) and an academic subject, with lesser use of French). Instruction largely consists of reading of a text in Arabic first, followed by its translation into the local language used at a particular school or area. The translation is in single words in the first grade, but in syntactic units in the upper grades. A text was presented either on the board where there were no textbooks; the latter would be used where available. Discussions of ideas from the originally Arabic text took place in both Arabic and local languages, with the latter (e.g.

Bambana) being dominant in some schools, and Arabic being dominant in others, at least from the fifth to the ninth grade. All in all, the researcher suggests, that the schools can be described as

“mixed-medium schools” (Tamari, 2009: 167), a term that seems to be an equivalent of dual- medium bilingual education schools in the sense that the local language is used together with

Arabic in learning and teaching.

In South Africa, the only bilingual education documented between an African language, isiXhosa, and English is a late exit model in which students would be taught in their L1 for the first six years of their schooling, with English introduced at the third grade as a learning area, and incrementally. This was the school given the pseudonym, Plasini School, in this study with its program, the ABLE Project. Four publications appeared in relation to the school. One reports on the teachers’ views on practice and challenges of teaching math and science in isiXhosa at the local level (Koch, et al, 2008). Another reports on bilingual language tests (Koch, 2009b). A third one (as listed here) reports first outcomes of the additive bilingual program at the school after a few years (Koch, et al, 2009a), and a fourth one is about a project that endeavored to

utilize the expertise and agency of both students and the local community to produce some reading materials in the L1 (Hunt, 2007). Although the preliminary results reported in Koch, et al. (2009a) showed promising students outcomes, the project was discontinued after a time.

Notwithstanding, it illustrated that there is interest in the initiation of bilingual education programs for the isiXhosa-speaking learners in the Eastern Cape, and hopefully, that interest will spread to other provinces in the country, for the benefit of learners.

As mentioned in the section on language policy in South Africa, bilingual education existed in the country only between Afrikaans and English for a long time. In relation to

Afrikaans and English only in South Africa, Plüddemann (2010) describes three types of bilingual education, namely, dual-medium, parallel medium, and single medium programs. In dual medium programs the goal was to teach all subjects in the medium of both English and

Afrikaans. In the parallel programs the goal was to ensure that English students became proficient in both English and Afrikaans, and vice versa for the Afrikaans pupils. In the single medium programs teaching the L2 well ensured bilingual development. In all three programs there was no forced exit from mother tongue instruction for both the English and the Afrikaans students.

Since for a very long time there has been no bilingual education involving English and an

African language, like isiXhosa, in South Africa, there are virtually no studies on local bilingual school practices, or on perspectives on this educational approach involving isiXhosa and English in the country, province, and district. The exception is Koch, et al.’s (2009a) description of the already mentioned ABLE Project that was implementing bilingual education on a farm school in

South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province. Although the study is based on the perspectives of one sector of major stakeholders, namely the authors who are the university academics who initiated

and supported the project at the school, the main purpose of the article is to give an initial report on learners’ outcomes. The sponsors’ perspective is that the outcomes are promising. It is therefore more of a program evaluation than a description of stakeholders or role players’ perspectives and views on the nature and practices of the bilingual program of school.

None of the studies mentioned above have reference to all the major stakeholders of local school bilingual education implementational practices. Therefore the current study focuses on the views and perspectives of all major stakeholders, except the learners, and the wh-questions concerning the initiation, introduction, and implementation of this historic occurrence at the

Mzamo Primary School. It thus became evident that the current explorative study must focus on, and be guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the perceptions and perspectives of the teachers, parents, school administrators and district and provincial government officials associated with the Mzamo Primary School about the bilingual education program’s initiation, implementation and local practices?

2. What are the stakeholders’ perceptions about the effectiveness and possibility of continuity of the program?

CHAPTER 3 THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This is a qualitative study, based on the constructivist–interpretivist paradigm (Creswell,

& Miller, 2000; Carter, & Little, 2007; Koro-Ljungberg, et al., 2009) as the participants of the phenomenon were the providers of the information, and thus producers of the data to be analyzed and interpreted. The research questions that guided the study are:

2. What are the stakeholders’ perceptions about the effectiveness and possibility of continuity of the program?

This study explored stakeholder perspectives on various aspects of the bilingual program of one school, with the pseudonym Mzamo Primary School (MPS), in order to understand what is done and why and how it is done in the bilingual program being run in one education district in the Province of the Eastern Cape in South Africa. The education district is given the pseudonym, BD-1 (standing for Bilingual District 1). Specifically, this study sought to document major role-players’ perceptions of the school’s bilingual program and develop a broad understanding of program practices (Krathwohl, 1993). Qualitative methods are the most suitable methods for the exploration of the complexities of participants’ experiences, views and perspectives on any matter concerning the participants’ lives (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Braun &

Clarke, 2006; Smith & Firth, 2011), as is done in the current study.

The Research Site and Setting

This study took place in a rural school, which is among the seventy-three schools that are piloting an isiXhosa-English bilingual education program, in one education district in the Eastern

Cape Province of South Africa (Bilingual District 1, shortened as BD-1). The school is given the

pseudonym of Mzamo Primary School (MPS). The opinions of the school’s administrators, educators, and parents may be sought at a later stage, to determine whether they would prefer the school to be mentioned by its real name, if this would be beneficial to the school (e.g. Freeman,

1998 with the Oyster Bilingual School in Washington DC). The schools, like the MPS, referred to as junior secondary schools (JSS) in some parts of the Eastern Cape Province, offer classes from grades R to 9 (Hunt, 2007). Grade R is “reception” grade, equivalent to Kindergarten in the

United States. The MPS offers bilingual instruction to students in Grades 4 to 6 by offering two subjects —math and natural science and technology (NS&T.) — mainly in isiXhosa, and the rest of the six subjects in English. Learning and teaching in the school’s Foundation Phase (Grades R to 3) takes place in the learners’ home language, isiXhosa. Basic English skills are introduced from Grade R (Braam, 2012; Ramadiro, 2009).

The bilingual education program of the school, along with others in the district, is new as it began just a few years ago. Advocacy work was done in 2010 and 2011, and consenting principals were asked to submit applications so that their schools could participate. According to the MPS principal the MPS was the first to be approached. In 2012, the bilingual education program started with Grade 4 pupils. This cohort continued to bilingual Grade 5 in 2013, the year data was collected for the current study. They were to become the first bilingually taught Grade 6 in 2014. Therefore, in 2014, the MTBBE program would complete the first cycle of bilingual education in the Intermediate Phase when the third Intermediate Phase grade, Grade 6, also became a part of it.

The main focus of the study was the bilingual program offered to the Intermediate Phase,

Grades 4, 5, and 6. Initially, three subjects were to be offered bilingually in these classes; mathematics, science, and technology. However, due to a government education policy,

technology ceased to be an independent learning area and was incorporated into science. This new learning area is called natural science and technology (NS&T). This means only two subjects, or learning areas as they are called, are now involved in the mother tongue-based bilingual education of the MPS. There is usually one teacher for each subject for all three grades of a phase. However, at the MPS, I found that there was such an acute shortage of teachers that one teacher was teaching two or three subjects, in many grades and across the phases, from the

Foundation Phase to the Senior Phase. This was locally referred to as multi-grading and multi- phasing.

The Participants and Data Collection Methods

The class allocation situation at the MPS was different than envisaged in the original plan, when I had intended to have individual interviews with three bilingual program content teachers. When the study was undertaken, there were only two. Where I had planned to have individual interviews with two language teachers, one for isiXhosa and one for English in the bilingual phase, I found that there was only one teacher teaching both isiXhosa and English at

Grades 4, 5, 6, and 7, and isiXhosa up to Grade 9. Therefore, I was not able to follow through with the original plan of interviewing five individual teachers in all. Instead I interviewed three teachers in the bilingual program — the language teacher, the NS&T teacher, and the math teacher. There was one math teacher for Grades 4, 5, and 6; one science and technology (NS&T) teacher for Grades 4, 5, and 6; and one isiXhosa and English teacher for Grades 4, 5, and 6.

Class observations occurred, but not strictly according to the originally planned schedule, as this was revision time for exams. This revision time factor, along with the instability caused by the shortage of teachers, meant that this was not a strictly organized class time. So, I observed classes as the opportunity became available. I tried to observe the bilingual classes as much as possible. However, as a part of learning about contextual factors, I observed Senior Phase and

Grade R classes as well. This was also because I noticed that they were very closely linked to the bilingual practice. For example, all participant teachers informed me about the bilingual examination paper that was written by the 2012 Grade 9 students, a grade in the Senior Phase, and not in the bilingual program.

Teachers had difficulty finding time for interviews. They complained of their workload, multi-grading and teaching across the phases, and extra administrative tasks given them by the district office at that time. It soon became clear that there would be no opportunity for second interviews. Also, an unexpected death in the family of a former teacher who had left the school only recently, in November 2013, meant that the teachers were even less available for interviews as they had to visit their former colleague’s home to help with funeral preparations and other related duties. This was also part of the school’s involvement with the local community.

Because the bilingual education program starts at the Intermediate Phase, I needed data for the phase that students completed before entering the bilingual program, and the phase to which they would transition when they left the bilingual program. This would place knowledge about the bilingually instructed phase in a context that would help complete its story and its picture. This context would include information about transitional strategies. However the situation was different than I anticipated. Due to the government’s teacher provisioning policy in

South Africa, where the ratio is one teacher to 35 learners, the teacher for Grades 2 and 3 was withdrawn from the school and had to join staff in the District Office. So, she left the school early in November, a few days after I arrived. So, there was nobody to observe in Grade 3, and there was no teacher to interview for this class. However, it soon became clear that the teaching and preparation for students to know English and isiXhosa concepts started right at Grade R.

Therefore I found Grade R to also be relevant, and so I had talks with the Grade R teacher as

well. She described her pedagogical approaches and the various materials she used. In addition, data related to the isiXhosa and English language classes was collected, as I interviewed the school’s language teacher for Intermediate to Senior Phase.

Had the situation not been different than I had envisaged, the teacher focus group interview (TFGI) which had been planned, would have consisted of the following members: one each of Foundation Phase and Senior Phase teachers, namely, the Grade 3 content teacher and the Grade 7 content teacher, respectively; the two Foundation Phase isiXhosa and English teachers; and the two Senior Phase isiXhosa and English language teachers, or a total of six teachers. However, the composition of the Teacher FGI changed. Because of multi-grading and teaching across phases, as well as the absence of a Grade 3 teacher, the situation was different from what I had anticipated. So, after discussing the focus group interview matter among themselves, the teachers ended up presenting themselves for the FGI as follows: (a) The Grade R teacher, apparently in place of the Grade 3 teacher who was not there anymore, and to represent perceptions from the Foundation Phase; (b) the language teacher who taught both isiXhosa and

English at Grade 7, and also taught the two languages in Grades 4, 5, and 6, as well as social science and life skills (content) at IP; (c) Grade 1 English teacher (to represent Foundation Phase perceptions); she also taught math in isiXhosa at Intermediate Phase (Grades 4 and 5 together);

(d) natural science and technology teacher at Intermediate Phase and Senior Phase, now representing Grade 7 teacher of NS&T; (e) and the SGB supported school administrative worker who doubled as the teacher for Economic Management Science (EMS) at Senior Phase. She represented the content teacher for Grade 7.

Classroom observations (Table 3-1)were to have taken place after the teacher FGI. But because of some logistical reasons, visits to classrooms happened according to what the school

Table 3-1. Changed Observation Schedule Class/ Phase Subject Planned Actual Observations Observations

Gr 5 (Not the planned 4 Natural Science 2 One. On 12 Nov 2013 &)

Gr 4 Math 1 Nov 6. Grs 4, 5 combined. A about 2 periods.

Grade 4 and 5 (School 2). Math (instead of Tech) 1 Nov 20, 2013 (Not the planned Grade 6 in school 1) Gr 5 Math 1 Nov 6, 2013. Gr. 4, 5 combined.

Gr 5 Geography (not Tech) 1 Nov 11. Gr 4 and 5. Geography.

IP (Bil) isiXh 0 (had planned for 1) Same approach as in Grades 7 and 9. Same teacher. Info at interview. IP (Bil) Eng 0 (had planned for 1) No chance to demonstrate shared reading. Described it at interview. 8 Biling Cl observations Not 8, but 5 bilingual classes observed.

FP Gr 3 Content 0 (had planned No teacher. for 1) Shortage.

FP Gr 2 Eng (had planned for 1 Nov 13, 2013 isiXh)

FP Gr 1 Eng 1 Done. Nov 6, 2013. Also Gr 1 Math. SP Gr 7 Content {History 1 Nov 18, 2013 exam}

SP Gr 7 Math 2 Nov 14, 2013. Combined with gr 6. Took 2 periods, before and after recess. SP Gr 8 7 isiXh 1 Combined Done. Nov 11, with Gr 9. (2 2013 periods) SP Gr 9 isiXh (instead of 1. Combined Done. Nov 11, English as originally with Grade7. (2 2013 planned). periods) 6 non-bilingual Cl. Observations 7 actual non-biling Cl. observation

could offer each day, which depended on which teacher was teaching what class at the time, as classes were taking place only for reviews for the approaching end-of-year examinations. This was exacerbated by the fact that teachers had to teach many classes per day. So if a teacher was in a Senior or Foundation Phase class at a time, her classes in the Intermediate Phase were left alone or taken by other teachers. The teacher replacement practice was interrupted by other administrative duties with which the teachers were tasked, including having to drive to the district office for necessary exam materials, and other needs of the school. The original classroom observation table changed as shown in Table 3-1.

Parents Focus Groups

To get the perceptions of parents, I conducted one focus group interview. There was no time for a second one. The first criterion was that parents had children in the bilingual program of the school. I wanted to get their perspective of the effectiveness of the bilingual education as they observed their children. I also wanted to find out how they helped their children with language learning and literacy at home. The second criterion was that they be parents, or members of the local community with a leadership role that connected them with the school.

These were the members of the School Governing Body (SGB). Because all the parents associated with the school elected them, SGB members could be considered as representing those parents who may not fall within any of the two groups. It was not necessary to invite a chief as there was none living in the vicinity of the school.

Ten parents came to a meeting held November 27, 2013. Five were School Governing

Body (SGB) members and five were simply parents. The school management, the principal and his second-in-command decided to call parents who always collaborated with the school. They all had children or wards at the school. The interview guide for this focus group is labeled

Appendix C. Parents Focus Group Interview Guide, at the end of the last chapter.

Interviews with Administrators

To get the perceptions of the administrators of the program at school, district and provincial levels, I conducted individual interviews with the people at these levels who handled the administrative as well as other duties related to the bilingual program. The first of these were the MPS principal and his second-in-command who formed the school management team

(SMT). The district officer (not one of the interviewees) who was my contact for entry to the research site had also connected me with another school, which I used to get triangulation data.

Only the principal at this school was available as administrator, because his second-in-command had a busy schedule, perhaps due to the approaching end of the year. Questions for principals and their second-in-command persons are in Appendix A. Teachers and Government Officials

Interview Guide.

At the district level, I had an interview with two district officers, with pseudonyms

District Officer -1 (DO-1) and District Officer 2 (DO-2) respectively. At the provincial level, I had interviews with the two officials who are the driving force behind the MTBBE program in the rural schools of the BD-1 District and for the entire Eastern Cape Province. Interview questions for all four government officials are in Appendix A. Teachers and Government

Officials Interview Guide.

Interviews with Teachers

The other major stakeholder group I interviewed were the teachers, in a focus group and in individual interviews. To gather the desired data for the study from a variety of sources and points of view, the same schedule of questions as for interviews with school administrators and government officials was used also for interviews with the teachers focus group as well as interviews with individual teachers. This, again, is Appendix A. Teachers and Government

Officials Interview Guide.

Recruiting Members for the Focus Group and Other Interviews

The principal and his second-in-command asked me about the possibility of adjusting my original schedule for everything to accommodate their schedule. They also decided the five teachers of the school could form the teachers focus group interview on November 27, 2013. The principal, who was not part of the teachers’ focus group, as well as the three teachers of the MPS connected in some way with the bilingual program, would also sit for individual interviews on later dates. One bilingual education teacher was available from the second school, the triangulation school. She was the Grades 4 and 5 math teacher, the one directly responsible for the bilingual project at the school with the pseudonym Siyazama Primary School (SPS).

For the parents focus group interview, the two school administrators of the MPS also decided to send letters to parents to come to the interview. Ten parents came, five SGB members and five non-SGB members. This combination went hand-in-hand with my criteria for the parents’ focus group members. The possibility of a bias in the results of the study as a result of the method of selecting the members of the parents focus group is made up for by the variety of other interviews as data sources in the study’s design.

Interview Dates and Other Details

Details of the dates and duration of each individual or focus group interview are presented in Table 3-3, which is named Appendix E, at the end of the last chapter of the study, in the section for all appendices. The table has four columns. The first column is for interviewees; the second for the date of each interview; the third for the duration of each interview and any necessary explanation, and the fourth column contains remarks about each interview.

Summary of Research Travels and Activities

I left the United States on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 and arrived in Johannesburg the following day, October 31, 2013. I flew to East London, in the Eastern Cape on Saturday

November 2 and rested on Sunday, November 3. The research travels to and from the research site, and between my accommodation for the research period at Ndabakazi and my home base in

East London, and research activities started began on Monday November 4, 2013. They followed the schedule that is summarized in Table 3-2 marked as Appendix D at the end of the last chapter in the section for appendices.

Data Management

The interview data were transcribed into transcripts. The transcripts were named protocols (prot.) and given numbers according to the participant grouping that is used in the study for easy classification and identification of the transcripts/protocols. The full identification of each protocol, or data item (in Braun & Clarke’s 2006 terminology) also includes the codename of the participant concerned. Here is one example: TFG-Protocol 1a (TFG-Prot. 1a).

This is the transcript of the teachers’ focus group interview. All teacher interviews as well as the parents’ focus group interview are assigned the number 1 and a small letter, starting with the

TFG which is Protocol 1a. Two other examples are PFG-Prot. 1e (PFG stands for parents focus group), and SPS-Teacher M-Prot 1f. Teacher M here means teacher for math. Each protocol was given a name (e.g. PFG), a number (e.g. 1), and a small letter (e.g. a, e, f, etc.) according to each source of data (participant interviewed).

For data management purposes, specifically, for the labeling and identification of protocols, the participants interviewed for the study were grouped as follows:

 A. The five teachers of the Mzamo Primary School (aka MPS) who were interviewed in a focus group (the TFG, Protocol 1a), who included a grade R teacher for reasons detailed previously;

 B. The principal and second in command of the MPS (Protocols 2a and 2c, respectively);

 C. The Natural Science and Technology (NS&T) and the language teacher (Protocols 1c and 1d, respectively);

 D. The parents associated with the school who included the school’s School Governing Body (SGB), identified in the study as the PFG, short for parents focus group (Prot. 1e);

 E. The District Director (DD), codenamed in the study as DO1, short form for District Officer 1, and the DO2 (district officer 2) who is the Subject Adviser for Natural Science and Technology (Protocols 4a and 4b, respectively);

 F. The two provincial officers who drive the new bilingual education program of the district, and thus of the school: the leading officer codenamed Nokhanyo and her assistant, codenamed Thandeka in the study (Protocols 4c and 4d, respectively); and

 G. The two teachers from a neighboring school, codenamed Siyazama Primary School (SPS), whose data are used in the study as triangulation data, and who are simply referred to as SPS Princ (short form for principal), and SPS Teacher M (M for math teacher). The respective transcripts from their interviews are Protocols 2b and 1f. Their inclusion is also explained in detail in an earlier paragraph in this chapter.

The participants were allowed to use either isiXhosa or English, and to speak in any way in which they were comfortable to express their views. This was to ensure both rapport and reliability of data. If isiXhosa data are quoted in the analysis, that data extract is translated. In the case of much translanguaging where isiXhosa and English words or phrases, or even morphemes, are integrated in the speech, I translated the isiXhosa utterances, but also included the English words or other forms, to preserve the context. This is to maintain the cohesion of the data and the narrative. Instances where the I have done this are clearly identifiable.

Data Analysis

Literature on qualitative research points out the necessity and importance of stating one’s epistemological and ontological orientation (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Smith & Firth, 2011).

Equally strong is the recommendation for robust qualitative data analysis processes, and a clear description of methods and procedures employed to analyze data and reach findings (Attride-

Stirling, 2001; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Poland, 2003; Smith & Firth, 2011). Some of the literature on qualitative research methods expresses concern that an over-emphasis on epistemological and ontological perspectives underpinning qualitative methods can overshadow the need for

robustness in methods and transparency in describing them. This lack of robustness and transparency is observed especially in connection with data analysis methods. For example, it has been noted that often a researcher will make a statement about themes beginning to emerge, without explicitly describing the process that led to him or her seeing the themes.

This lack of robustness and transparency results in a weak research report, which in turn makes it difficult for the reader of the report to evaluate and make a critical appraisal of the findings of a study, or for other researchers to use it for similar investigations (Attride-Stirling,

2001; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Smith & Firth, 2011). Transparency in analytical processes also enhances the validity and reliability in a qualitative research study as it ensures a clear audit trail

(Meriam, 2002). In keeping with such considerations the thematic analysis approach was chosen for the current study’s data analysis, as it is one of the recommended methods, especially to help the novice in qualitative research develop skills for robust data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Some Important Facts about Thematic Analysis

While others regard thematic analysis and its coding system as a tool that can be used across a number of qualitative analysis methods, like, for example, grounded theory, framework method (Smith & Firth, 2011), and discourse analysis, Braun and Clarke (2006) argue for its recognition as a method in its own right. Thematic analysis is employed as an analysis method for the data analysis of the current study. The approach to thematic analysis chosen for the study is to do a rich thematic description of the entire data corpus, i.e. of all the data items combined, namely the interviews and classroom observations. The reason is that the study’s research questions will be answered by a focus on predominant themes that recur in the entire data set/corpus. Braun and Clarke (2006) point out that this kind of analytic approach has to result in an accurate representation of the entire data set’s content through accurate identification, coding and analysis of themes that reflect all the data. Although there is an inevitable loss of some

depth and complexity in such an analysis, the overall description is rich (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

It has been pointed out that “this might be a particularly useful method when you are investigating an under-researched area, or with participants whose views on the topic are not known.” (Braun & Clarke, 2006: 11). Thus this data analysis method is fitting for analyzing the views of the MPS-associated participants as their views on the school’s bilingual education program as well as the program itself have never been researched before this study, as this is a newly implemented program.

Both conditions fit the author’s study. Because it is fairly new, bilingual education implementation involving African languages in South Africa is under-researched, and the views of stakeholders on it are not known. The thematic method allows extensive use of the inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Gale, et al., 2013; Smith & Firth, 2011), in which the analysis is data-driven. As a result, extensive use is made of in-vivo labels for codes and themes up to at least the stage of reporting findings. In this way analysis keeps the link between interpretation and the original data, that is the words of the participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The following analytic steps applied to the study’s data are based on the six steps described by Braun and

Clarke (2006).

Analytic Steps

The first formal step of the data management stage, which is part of the analysis, was the narrow, verbatim transcription of the interviews (Dey, 1993; Poland, 2003). The process of familiarization with the current study’s data began during transcription. As the transcription process entailed listening over and over again to the audio recorded interviews to ensure an accurate, narrow, verbatim transcription of each interview, this brought back vivid memories of the atmosphere and experience of the data elicitation stage, namely, the questions asked in the interviews and the responses. In this way, the narratives of each particular participant became

alive again in the author’s mind. Thus, during the transcription process, initial reflection about the data took place. The author began to form preliminary understandings of what some of the words of a participant meant in relation to the broad topic and problem of the study, and towards addressing the study’s research questions. These initial understandings or summaries of what the data were saying were written in italics between curled brackets at the end of each transcribed chunk that represented a whole idea. Some of these were mere descriptions, while others led to labels or names for codes. This was therefore the beginning of summarizing, and paraphrasing, thus data reduction.

After the transcription of each interview or data item was completed, a second copy of the transcript was made and given a new file name (see above, under Data Management). An indication that it contained notes was added to the first draft copy’s file name. The second copy’s file name included the indication, “Cleaned-Up”. The cleaned up copy now reflected accurately the numbering of the lines of the transcribed data. On further reading and re-reading in each transcript and across transcripts, the preliminary understandings and codes were refined, by asking questions such as, “What does this chunk of data seem to be saying?” The different codes’ contents so identified were then differentiated by color-coding in each transcript and across transcripts. Mostly the highly recommended in-vivo terms (Smith & Firth, 2011), or etic labels (Patton, 2002), were used to name the codes. This means the naming of codes not by theoretical names at this stage, but by use of labels that are based on the data, in other words, on the original words of the participants. All this was done in the Word documents containing the transcripts or protocols.

The next step was to use the codenames to generate codes in the form of tables. Relevant data extracts were transferred from the protocols to each table by copy pasting. In the very

beginning there were 84 such preliminary tables. By reading the data contained in them, as well as re-reading the data in the original sources and the protocols so as to ensure the preservation of the context of data extracts, some of the smaller codes were collapsed together as one code, some were transferred to different codes, others were recoded, and still others still were made sub-parts of bigger codes.

The Form, Contents and Use of the Tables

Each table had six columns. The first column on the left indicated the pseudonym of the interviewee from whose transcript raw data identified as part of a meaningful pattern was taken and inserted in the second column of the table. This leftmost column was the first means to maintain the connection between the data extracts (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and their source, for the sake of this connection and for easy reference if necessary, at the advanced stages of the analysis. In the second column the actual data extracts (Braun & Clarke, 2006) that fitted to an identified code were inserted from each transcript in which they occurred, by copy-and-paste.

To further anchor the codes to the data, more details of the source of each data extract were indicated in the third column by inserting the number of the source protocol (e.g. Protocol 1f), as well as the numbers of the data lines from which the data extract had been copied, giving the full source identification as, e.g., Prot 1f. Lines 318-325.

Open coding was used, in which some data-extracts were coded in as many ways as possible. This preliminary cross coding of raw data was indicated below the line numbers in the third column. For example, below Prot 1f. Lines 318-325, there could be the cross-coding comment, “Also to Codes 4 and 11,” etc. When all the data had been coded, all those marked for cross-coding in the above way were cross-transferred to other codes where necessary. The next step was refinement of the initial codes. Data-extracts in column 2 of each table were re-read, line by line, with re-reference to the original transcripts/protocols for contextualization, where

necessary, and with application of analysis questions like, “What is going on here?” or “What does this exactly say?” etc. The questions were asked with the intention of uncovering what the data was saying with regard to addressing the problem of the study and the research questions.

This enabled the next level of analysis, which was also an interpretative analysis. This consisted of summarizing and paraphrasing the data extracts now contained in the second column of each table. Different aspects of a large data extract could yield more than one summary and/or paraphrase. For example, the data extract identified as coming from Prot 1f, Lines 318-325, yielded the following paraphrases: Teachers first did not understand the MTBBE; Mistook it for exclusive isiXhosa medium; Wondering how children will know English; Thinking students would be lost if transferring to an English-medium policy school. All the paraphrases or summaries were still based on words in the raw data. They were listed in the fourth column of each table.

The paraphrases and / or summaries in the fifth column were again read and constantly compared to the still raw data extracts in column two. A list of names or labels for second level codes was generated using some of the paraphrases as they were, and sometimes giving names or labels that were conceptualized, or that were linked with existing theories and literature. This list was written in the fifth column, and numbered, e.g. Code 1: Possible Extension to Senior Phase;

Code2: Desirable/Possible extension to Matric; Code 3: Desirable Extension to Beyond Matric

(If only one paraphrase or data extract, this will be described as a non-robust finding, because it will not be part of any theme. But it may be reported as a finding because of its important implication for language policy at a tertiary level, in South Africa), Code 4: Skepticism (the numbering changed).

These numbered code names were again collated, so that similarly numbered codenames were given one name according to the idea that they collectively expressed, until there were no name duplications and there was one list of the new code names. The paraphrases and/or summaries in the fourth column were then combined in twos, threes, etc., in meaningful collated patterns. Each such collated group was assigned a name from the new, numbered list of code names recorded in column five. To save space in each table, the assignment was done by writing the correct number of a code next to each paraphrase or summary in column four. Some were again cross-referenced as relevant to other codes as well, and similar comments as mentioned earlier were written below each paraphrase that had a code name, but was also identified as fitting to one or more other codes as well. The codes to which most paraphrases and/or summaries fitted were identified as robust. Robustness was also determined when any addition of summarized or raw data did not lead to any additional meaning or changing of the meaning.

However, some of the themes that were not robust in terms of representing data from all sources, were found to be key to the meaning that addressed the research questions, or to be significant in linking the study’s central findings with relevant larger issues in the wider local and national environments, as well as globally, in the field of LPP.

Steps to Findings and Conclusion

Once all the second level codes were completed they were grouped into categories of similar meanings. These were in turn combined into themes. Some of the robust codes formed categories and themes on their own. That is, each of them was found to represent a meaning category, and ultimately theme, that was different though related to those that grouped into categories pointing to larger meanings or themes. The themes were reported in Chapter Four as findings. The findings were discussed, and conceptual interpretations of the findings and their linking with existing theory of the LPP and bilingual education fields were made, in Chapter

Five. Chapter Six contains implications of the findings, recommendations, and statement of further research lines.

Researcher Bias and Subjectivity

My interest in language policy and language in education policy issues grew out of a long time career as a linguistics-oriented language teacher. I taught isiXhosa to its speakers and later to second and foreign language learners of the language at high school and university level. The teaching of the language as a second/foreign language has been both in South Africa and the

United States. In some university classes in South Africa I taught comparative studies of African languages, including isiNguni and Sesotho groups as well as other languages of the Ntu family

(so-called ‘Bantu’ language family). I took part in various language development practices, including terminology creation, translation (including the new constitution to isiXhosa), lexicography, and production of publisher commissioned syllabus-based isiXhosa language textbooks, among other things. After the passing of South Africa’s new, multi-lingual language policy I was one of the first people to serve, for a long time, in the Pan South African Language

Board (PanSALB) structures, including the National isiXhosa Lexicography Unit in which I was employed for a long time, the National Language Body (NLB) for isiXhosa tasked with looking after the affairs of isiXhosa language at national level, and the Eastern Cape Provincial Language

Committee responsible for corpus and status planning issues relating to all the languages of the

Province, chief of which were the official languages, namely, isiXhosa, Afrikaans and Sesotho.

The PanSALB structures were mandated with the development, promotion and maintenance of all the languages of South Africa, and the development of the previously marginalized African languages to the level of English and Afrikaans which had been the only two nationally recognized official languages in South Africa for centuries.

When I came to the United States for my doctoral studies I wanted to learn more about bilingual and multilingual issues, including bilingual education because these were issues we had started talking about in the country. That is part of the reason I changed programs after two years, transferring from my Linguistics PhD program to join the ESOL-Bilingual Bicultural

Education Program in the Curriculum Department of the School of Teaching and Learning of the

College of Education at the University of Florida.

With this long career and interest in the development and welfare of African languages, and in particular, isiXhosa, I embarked on a program of courses that sharpened my insights into the field of language policy and planning, and into research. From the insights I gained into the field of bilingual education I became a proponent of mother tongue based bilingual education for

South Africa and wrote my first term paper in my new program of study on exactly this topic, in

2009. I addressed the question of non-implementation of the country’s LiEP despite the need that had been already identified for mother tongue education by many writers in and about education of the majority of African students most of whom live in rural and semi-rural areas.

Because of my broad interest in the language and language and education issues, and especially language and education issues, I had a hard time to narrowing my focus down to a specific research topic. With my Academic Adviser’s help I ultimately identified a point at which to start researching into the wide field of language policy and planning, including language and education. Therefore the current study, which is a part fulfillment of my Education

Doctoral program, is only a start of an envisaged long research journey in LPP in general and in language and education issues, in particular, in the context of South Africa.

With the long experience in language matters, and the further-deepening interest in LPP issues including language and education, the dormant wish I grew up with for bilingual or multi-

lingual proficiency development has become very active not only for myself but also for all

African language speakers in South Africa. This is the first reason I chose to do research on bilingual education between an African language (isiXhosa) and English. The nation-wide concern about the high failure and school dropout rates among the majority of African language speaking students was an equally strong reason for my choice of dissertation study topic. I was therefore keenly aware of my vulnerability to bias and subjectivity, and my Academic Adviser did her best to point these out to me at every stage of our discussions of my research plan and proposal. So did the panel of professors serving in my Academic Committee at the University of

Florida.

After reading the available literature about language and education in Africa and in

South Africa, my pro-African languages orientation was strengthened. My positioning or bias is that there is, in Africa generally and in South Africa in particular, a need for a change from the colonial mindset that Bamgbose (1991) calls the inheritance situation. This change is necessary so as to regard African languages as valuable as English and other foreign languages for all aspects of life but especially for educational access. Such a high esteem for their own languages should enable more speakers of African languages to embrace African language-based bilingual

(or multi-lingual, as the case may be) education (Alexander, 2006; Benson, 2005). For bilingual education to be accepted by the majority and be implemented widely, there is a need for the said change in the general mindset. In turn, successful bilingual education implementation, with its effectiveness demonstrated by improvement in academic performance and achievement of high level biliteracy and bilingual proficiency by learners, can bring about that change in the African society with regard to attaching value to their languages, educationally and otherwise. This positioning with which I approached my dissertation topic, research site and participants is a

source of bias as seen in the choice of these aspects of my study. However, much as I am inclined in favor of promoting bilingual education between isiXhosa and English in the Eastern

Cape in particular, I am aware as an academic that such promotion will only be based on facts as revealed by the data and findings.

The choice of the research site can be said to have a measure of subjectivity, because of the limited scope for choice since the bilingual education program was still new, and was implemented in a limited area of only one district. Since I was aware of the skepticism of some middle class isiXhosa speaking parents (De Klerk, 2000) and students (Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005) towards mother-tongue education, I looked for a site at which bilingual education was already accepted and implemented. Being aware of anti-bilingual education arguments in South Africa as they are well documented (see Heugh, 2000), I deliberately looked for the views of people who were for bilingual education. The views of non-implementing schools in the same district about the newly piloted bilingual education program are therefore absent from the study’s data and interpretation. Also, having no other contact for help with choice of, and entry to, the school I solicited the help of the Director of the Language-in-Education Policy Unit in the Eastern Cape’s

Department of Education. She, in turn, connected me with a senior official in the implementing district, who also was involved with the implementing schools, and who helped me with the two schools which became the main site and the triangulation site for the study’s research. It is possible therefore that I was given entrance to schools known to be among the best, and whose views about the program would be only positive. Views of other implementing schools, which might be different, have possibly been left out.

With regards to the choice of participants, I did not have a very wide choice either. The limited scope for choice applied first to the provincial government officials I interviewed,

namely the two who are the main drivers behind the establishment and piloting of the bilingual education program in the Eastern Cape. The simple reason for their choice was that they were the only two who had knowledge of the newly introduced program in the Province. I therefore collected data only from participants, at the provincial level, whose views support and promote the implementation of bilingual education. The results of the study might therefore be biased in favor of the program. This limited choice of participants at provincial level left out views of people within the Department who might have different perceptions about the program. The point is that my aim was to collect data about practices and about what happened practically to ultimately lead to the implementation of the Province’s bilingual education program and the choice of the implementing district and of the school that was my study’s main site. Therefore perceptions based on reflection about the desirability or none of the isiXhosa based bilingual education were excluded even from the study’s plan.

At district level bias may be said to exist from several points of view. Firstly, the contact who enabled me to have access to my data collection site and the triangulation school was also a senior official of the implementing district. She was directly involved with the implementing schools as a science specialist. Selection bias in this regard exists because the schools selected were said to be among the best in the implementing district. It is possible therefore that these schools presented mainly favorable views about the program. It is possible that alternative views from other implementing schools have been left out from the data. The results of the study therefore may be representative of only one side of the story about the MTBBE program.

Secondly, the study’s two district level participants were the highest official in the district, and a science and technology Subject Advisor. In the study they are given the pseudonyms, DO1 and DO2, respectively. Interviewing only the District Director of the

implementing district was part of the study’s planned scope. Nonetheless, it meant that the data would not be representative of other district managers, including those who had been approached by the Eastern Cape Department of Education for the initial implementation but did not get to the implementation stage. It is not certain therefore how the results might have been had there been more than one implementing districts and had these district directors been interviewed for their perspectives on the piloted mother tongue based bilingual education program. The same applies to the subject advisor for science, who was the only subject adviser interviewed. Only his views, which are favorable towards the piloted program, are reported in the study. There is no way of knowing what the views of the math subject advisor involved in the MTBBE program would have been.

At the level of the school, the teachers involved in the implementation of the bilingual program at both the main site and the triangulation site were my participants. Although there were reports of initial skepticism about the program in both schools, these opposing attitudes were soon resolved, and all the teachers reported that later they not only understood the program, but they also embraced it. Again here, views of teachers who may not have the similar opinions about the MTBBE program have not been included in the study’s data and results, as the study’s plan did not include many schools, and as the selection of the main site and triangulation schools was carefully guided for various reasons including road accessibility.

Although the Mzamo Primary School (MPS) and the Siyazama Primary School (SPS)’ s principals did not have classes in the bilingually taught Intermediate Phase grades, I needed to interview them as school administrators, and they also represented the Grade 7 teachers I had planned to interview for their views on any transitional strategies they might have for ensuring a smooth transition of the learners from the bilingually taught math and science at Grade 6 to total

English immersion at the Senior Phase, especially at Grade 7. As administrators of the best implementing schools, these participants’ data may also be skewed towards the positive side about the bilingual education program. The only reported problem by both teachers and the school administrators were the shortage of teachers caused by the government’s reduction of the number of teachers, which in turn was caused by the depleted numbers of learners. The results of the study are therefore based on views that do not include any possible unfavorable perceptions from administrators of other implementing schools in the district.

With regards to the parents’ focus group, selection bias may be reported again. The members of the study’s parents’ focus group at the MPS were recommended by the school management team (SMT). It is possible that they selected parents who were cooperating with the schools, who would therefore give mainly, or only, favorable reports about the school’s newly implemented bilingual education and its effect on the children. Again, because of the planned scope of the study to only one school, parents’ views from different schools that might present different reports about the program at their schools had to be excluded. There is therefore the inevitable likelihood that the study’s results represent only one side of the story from the parents’ perspective about the MTBBE program.

All these situations were rich potentials for bias and subjectivity on my part and on the part of the participants, in the ways in which I have discussed above. However, as a believer in constructivist-interpretivist epistemology I knew that the knowledge I would seek through embarking on research into bilingual education practices in South Africa should be constructed by the participants. My main role as co-constructor of knowledge with the participants would be to interpret what they said and describe that knowledge on the basis of the data. I therefore had to be always conscious to control bias and subjectivity at all stages.

I had to be always conscious of the fact that the views I was seeking were those of the participants, and not mine. During the interviews I communicated freely with each interviewee or focus group, responding naturalistically to conversations that arose as a result of my interview questions or follow up or prompt questions. While engaging in the human communication like that, I remained conscious of the need for brevity for the sake of time and, most importantly, so as to avoid wandering off the topic. During the interviews with participants who knew the history of the MTBBE well, I sometimes experienced brief moments of off-topic veering, because of the enthusiasm raised by a certain point in the participant or me. The training I had received during my research methodology courses, and especially from my Academic Adviser and other

Committee members made me sensitive to such slips, and I always remedied the situation upfront by pointing out that such a topic was very interesting but we had to preserve it for another study as we had to talk about issues relevant to the topic at hand. We had moments of good laughs here and there with my participants. Therefore, some of such slips were functional in enhancing the rapport between me and the participants, considering that with some the very fact that I was a researcher from an overseas university had a potentially intimidating effect.

Speaking out onto the audio recorder when remedying such slipping-off moments helped reminding me of them later during the time of transcribing, so that I avoided including points that included my subjectivity as data. I also avoided recording in my transcripts any data that were the result of leading prompt or follow-up questions on my part, and that might therefore have skewed the results of the study.

Besides maintaining a high awareness of, and sensitivity to, possibility of bias and subjectivity throughout the stages of data collection, data management and data analysis and interpretation, I also tried to ensure reliability in my study by giving a detailed description of the

methods I used for data collection, management and analysis. A clear description of the methods used in a qualitative study for purposes of transparency and reliability is recommended in some of the literature in qualitative research (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Merriam,

2002; Smith & Firth, 2011).

Triangulation is one of the methods I used to ensure reliability in analysis and interpretation. The perspectives of the various stakeholder groups were triangulated against each other, and those of the main site school with those of the SPS. In this way interpretations depended highly on what the various participants expressed as their perceptions of the MTBBE program.

In my analysis and description of the findings in Chapter 4 I have made sure that I do not interpret, but present the views of the stakeholders. Findings descriptions were supported with appropriate quotes from the data. With such data-grounded description of findings, it was easy to keep connections with the findings as well as the raw data supporting them during interpretation of the findings. Therefore in Chapter 4 I endeavored to keep the emic voices of the participants clear. In Chapter 5 I endeavored to keep a clear connection of the researcher’ s interpretive etic voice with the emic voices of constructors of the knowledge generated by the study. All these methods, from noting and being aware of, and sensitive to, my bias and positioning in relation to the study, to the clear description of all methods and procedures, helped ensure the reduction of the effects of bias and promote transparency and reliability of the study.

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter tells the story of the Mzamo Primary School (MPS) from the perspective of various stakeholders. The chapter begins with a historical overview, which outlines the decisions and steps taken that ultimately led to the implementation of the country’s renowned resource oriented language-in-education-policy (LiEP). The remainder of the chapter is organized around the central themes related to program implementation and practices as reported by the stakeholders.

Historical Foundations of the MPS

This theme provides important details of the historical context of the study’s phenomenon of interest, the mother tongue-based bilingual education program of the Mzamo Primary School

(MPS). It reveals how a grassroots organization’s proactive local implementation of an additive bilingual education program triggered active decision making by the higher level leaders of the

Eastern Cape Department of Education. This finding is presented as a timeline of the steps that ultimately led to the implementation and to the choice of the Mzamo Primary School for this study.

Long Prior to 2003: Ministerial Discussions in the Province

Data from the interview with the second provincial official has revealed that the long period of non-implementation of the LiEP’s recommended bilingual education based on the children’s primary languages was not an entirely inactive phase throughout the country.

Thandeka (pseudonym) narrated that long before 2003, there had been discussions and considerations by different education MECs (Provincial Ministers of Education) about what

ways could be employed to teach the children in both their primary language of isiXhosa, and their second language, English.

Ndithe ndiselapho ke, . . . kwa-Teacher Development - Yiminyakana nje mithathu – kwafika le program ke ngoku. . . . Lide ibali lale nto. Andizu thatha koo-MEC ababekhona ngaphambili, koo-2003, bezama-zamana nale not’ uba esi siXhosa, ithini into yowutitsh’ abantwana ngesiXhosa, nokubatitsha ngesiNgesi? . . . Yaba yindlel’ ende

[[I was not long there . . . at Teacher Development [Section]. It was only [after] three years- and then this program came. . . . This is a long story. I will not trace far back from [the time of] MECs who were there before even 2003, who were struggling with this question of how to have the children taught in isiXhosa and in English. . . . It became a long journey]].

This quote shows that long before the advent of the MTBBE, there were serious talks at the highest level of the Eastern Cape Department of Education about the issue of L1-L2 in the education of the province’s children.

2003: The Plasini School’s ABLE Project

Thandeka reported that in 2003, there was actual implementation of a pilot bilingual education project at a farm school by a trust-funded NGO that consisted of academics from a

University in the Western Cape Province (the University of the Western Cape), and one in the

Eastern Cape (Rhodes University). Thandeka was three years into a transfer job within the

Eastern Cape’s Department of Education, namely teacher development, when her qualifications and experiences with language (working with both isiXhosa and English but as separate subjects), curriculum, and teacher development were found adequate to involve her with this first initiative. The initiative was called the additive bilingual education (ABLE) Project (see Koch, et al., 2009). In the current study, the school is given the pseudonym, Plasini School.

The Plasini School bilingual program was intended to be additive in the sense that children would be taught in their mother tongue, isiXhosa from Grade 1 to grade 6 in all subjects, with English being added gradually, first as a learning area or subject. It was an

attempt at what they called a late exit bilingual education program type (Koch, et al., 2009a).

Thus, Thandeka became involved with bilingual education when she was a liaison officer and overseer of the ABLE Project for the Eastern Cape Department of Education (ECDoE). She relates her sudden deployment to the Plasini School Project as follows:

Ndithe nd’selapho ke,. . ., kwa-Teacher Development; yiminyakana nje mithathu, kwafika le program ke ngoku. . . . Lide ibali lale nto. . . . Kwathiwa, khawuk’ ujonge laa nto, Thandeka, from the departmental perspective. Ngoba kalokw’ is’kolo sesethu. Aba bantu benza laa research phaa. Ewe, iyayivumela i- Department laa research. Kodwa mayibe nomntu oyijongileyo. Ndanyulwa k’ uba ndiyo jonga laa project.. . . Nokuba liliso le-Department kulaa nto bayenzayo.

[[To cut along story short, I was only three years in the Teacher Development Section[ of the Curriculum Division of the Eastern Cape Department of Education], when the [Plasini] project arrived. . . . It is a long story. . . . I was told: Please go and monitor that project, Thandeka, from the departmental perspective. Because the school belongs to us [the ECDoE].Those people are doing research there. Yes, the Department allows that research. But there must be a person who monitors what is going on. So I was appointed to go and monitor the project. . . . And to be an eye on behalf of the Department.]]

Within three years into her newest transfer post in the Department of Education, in the

Teacher Development section, Thandeka became an observer on the Plasini School’s bilingual education project, the ABLE Project, on behalf of the Eastern Cape Department of Education

(ECDoE) and coordinating officer between the ABLE Project and the Eastern Cape Department of Education. Therefore, she was simultaneously representing the department and monitoring this project for it.

Mandate to Extend the ABLE Program

Soon after the start of the ABLE Project, the then MEC of the ECDoE decided to build on the initiative of the project and pilot the implementation of bilingual education in a few more schools in the Province. Thandeka described this decision from her perspective as she was still trying to find a foothold in this new way of learning and teaching, something for which she had

no experience yet which she was expected to oversee and monitor on behalf of the province’s education department. She explained the position in which she found herself at the time:

Ndathi ndisajongene naloo nto ke, indixakile, kwabe futhi kusithiwa masiyongeze. Esaa sikolo ingabi siso sodwa. Makube kho neziny’ aph’ e-Provinsini.

[[I was still grappling with that, not yet having found my way around it, when we were told to increase the number of schools so that it was not only that school. There must be a few more in the Province [in which the program would be implemented]].

After much discussion the Eastern Cape Department of Education decided that the Plasini School program needed to be expanded to just six other schools, despite the vastness of the province. An added complexity was the question of choosing the districts from which the six schools would be chosen, and the criteria to be used for the selection of both the districts and the schools.

2003 and Beyond: Thandeka Seeks Knowledge about Bilingual Education

To prepare herself to oversee for the ABLE Project and the mandated expansion of bilingual education to six other schools in the Province, Thandeka’s, ABLE Project implementers advised her to consult a research unit called The Project for the Study of

Alternative Education in South Africa (PRAESA),run by the late Dr. Neville Alexander.

PRAESA is an independent research and development unit that is affiliated with the University of Cape Town. With help from PRAESA, Thandeka was progressively acquiring some understanding of the additive bilingual education (ABLE) program being piloted at the Plasini

School, where she was the government’s representative in that project. She also solicited and received PRAESA’s help with various resources necessary to advocate on behalf of the additive bilingual education programs to be implemented on a trial basis in six other schools in the province.

First Advocacy Practice: Department Consults District Directors

The first action towards advocating bilingual education implementation, on a trial basis, in the Province was to call a meeting with district directors to discuss it. Thandeka reports that many did not show interest. Only the directors of the DB-1 and DB-3 showed interest. Thandeka reported that the Eastern Cape Department of Education (ECDoE) envisaged that the ABLE

Project’s type of bilingual education would be extended only to six schools in the entire province. Two schools each were to be selected from three districts, out of twenty-three districts.

The three districts chosen for the selection of two schools from each were DB-1, DB-2 and DB-3. (See map Fig 4-1 below for the geographical distribution of all the districts and their division into clusters.). The first criterion was representativeness of both rural and semi-urban previously disadvantaged schools of isiXhosa-speaking children. DB-1 (in Cluster B on the map below) and DB-3 (in Cluster A) represented rural schools while the DB-2 district (in Cluster C) had semi-urban schools in the locations populated mostly by amaXhosa. The second criterion was easy accessibility by air and short road transportation as the whole advocacy was to be done with the help of the PRAESA practitioners from Cape Town in the Western Cape Province. DB-

1 is fairly close to DB-2, which is a city with an airport, while DB-3 is fairly easily accessible through the Mthatha airport. Another reason for choosing the DB-3 District during the first round of advocacy was that even though other rural districts were closer to the Mthatha Airport, it was

DB-3’s District Director who showed interest in piloting the bilingual education program. The map labeled Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of the education districts of the large, mostly rural,

Province of the Eastern Cape.

Figure 4-1. Education Districts of the EC in Clusters. From http://www.emisec.co.za/downl/Query%20Maps/Completed%20Maps%20for%20we b/Clusters.jpg. Retrieved June 11, 2015.

The three districts that were selected were Cofimvaba (pseudonym, BD-1), East London

(pseudonym, BD-2), and Qumbu (pseudonym, BD-3).

2009: Next Advocacy Practice: Visits to Districts

In response to Thandeka’s request for help, PREASA’s Dr. Alexander recommended a number of PRAESA language and education practitioners to help her with development of materials to use for advocacy. They came from Cape Town to work with Thandeka from time to time. One of them was Nokhanyo, who was highly recommended by PRAESA because she was very strong in advocacy. Nokhanyo came to help with the first round of advocacy when the

Eastern Cape Education Department was still looking for the six schools, where they would implement a bilingual education program, like the ABLE pilot project. In this first round, district schools that had been selected were visited. Thandeka and her helpers also solicited the help of the Plasini School teachers to demonstrate how they taught math and science in isiXhosa.

However, the ABLE Project, after some time, ceased to operate. But it had helped the province make a start.

2009: Next Advocacy Step: Big Meeting at BD-1 District

During 2009, definite advocacy steps were taken in the Province of the Eastern Cape of

South Africa. Advocacy took the form of what they called “roadshows,” which in reality were meetings that would be held in each of the selected districts to present the new bilingual approach to education of the district’s children. The largest of these meetings was held in the

Qamata Great Place (the home of the Paramount Chief in the area) in the BD-1 District.

Thandeka said this district gave the bilingual education advocates the warmest welcome and reception. All sections of the district, including finance managers, and all school principals with

Intermediate Phase, local chiefs and members of teacher unions attended in large numbers. Even high school principals who had not been invited, showed up when they heard about the big advocacy meeting. They wanted to hear for themselves about this new approach that was being planned for primary schools, since primary schools were their feeder schools in terms of students. In terms of enthusiasm, the big Qamata meeting was a success.

The advocacy took the form of introducing the audience to the idea of bilingual education, explaining why the children needed it, as well as illustrations of how bilingual education worked in a few schools that were implementing it in the Western Cape Province where Nokhanyo was involved at the time. Secondly, the departmental advocacy team, still led by Thandeka at this time, had prepared bilingual application forms for schools that would be willing to volunteer for the implementation of the bilingual program. The plan was that the applications would be short-listed and only two schools selected.

2009. District Level Decisions: Increase in Number of Schools

While the provincial level was busy with its implementational plans, district level LPP decisions were made that intersected with the provincial plan, resulting in different school numbers than the two originally planned by the province for implementation of the bilingual education program. First, the schools were increased from two to 11. By the time of the big advocacy meeting at the Qamata Great Place, the DB-1 district director and his colleagues in the district office had decided that piloting in only two schools in their big district was not enough.

They felt at least each of the eleven circuits into which the district is divided, should be represented by at least one school. So the choice for this district was increased from two to eleven schools for piloting the program. After the Qamata meeting, district education employees, including curriculum advisers for the circuits, did advocacy at the circuit level. In difficult situations at the circuit, Nokhanyo was asked to come and respond to difficult questions that still arose because of skepticism. Although the mandate to continue the advocacy at circuit and other lower levels of the LPP onion still came as a top-down instruction, it was faithfully carried out by the district level officials, namely subject advisors.

Both at the big roadshow meeting at Qamata Great Place and at the visits to school circuits, schools were asked to apply on a voluntary basis. At first the plan was that schools would apply by letter and fill out a bilingual application form. There were two leading criteria that would be used to short list schools for implementation of the bilingual education program.

These were high enrollment, and good school management, lest the implementation of the pilot project be affected. Therefore, there was a measure of good planning and efforts at ensuring effectiveness.

Second, the number of schools was increased from eleven to 73. As the applications were being processed and the schools short-listed, the then District Director of the BD-1, Mr.

100

Qalekhaya (not his real name) decided that the participation of eleven schools was not enough.

Nothing of significance could be observed from such a small number of schools. Therefore the number of schools to implement was increased by asking all schools with Intermediate Phase

(IP: Grades 4, 5, and 6.) in the district to volunteer to pilot the program. Ultimately there were 74 schools with the Intermediate Phase (IP) that agreed to volunteer for the program. But one declined later, so that at the time of the research for the current study, there were 73 schools implementing the MTBBE program. These schools included the Mzamo Primary School.

2009. Advocacy at Local Level: The Mzamo Primary School (MPS)

There is evidence that the MPS had been identified even from the beginning, when the provincial Department of Education had decided to extend the very first initiative of the Plasini

School to three more districts in the province, with representation from two schools per district.

The author learned hat it was one of the two schools that had been chosen by the district from the very beginning to pilot the program. Reasons for this prior identification are evident in the words of the two district officials interviewed for this study, who emphasized the good qualities of the

MPS. The DO1 said about the school, “U-MPS simthembile” [[As for the MPS we trust the school]].

From the teachers’ and the principal’s interviews it became evident that only the principal and chairperson of the SGB had attended the Qamata Great Place roadshow meeting. However, the teachers and parents focus groups seemed to say something different, namely that the principal went to the Qamata Great Place meeting, came back and informed the teachers and the

SGB, and the three parties together informed the rest of the parents in a meeting at the school.

The application letter, which was by now a foregone conclusion for the MPS, was written with the knowledge of the entire school community. Later, Thandeka and some people from the

101

provincial head office and from the district office also visited the school. The following vignette describes the visit:

RESEARCHER: Okay. Uthe ke kwakuye uPrincipal eQamata kuqala. RESPONDENT 1: Ewe. RESEARCHER: Baphinde ke ngoku ba— kweziwa futhi apha es’kolweni? RESPONDENT 1: Kwaphinda kweziwa apha es’kolweni, kuba ukuqala kwayo kwathiwa iza kwenziwa ezikolweni ezibini le nto. Kuqondwe ukuba iza kuba yinto eza kuphumelela na le nto. Ke ngoku kwakhethwa esi sikolo sethu, nesiny’ is’kolo esingaph’eBD-1. Ndisilibele ukuba yintoni igama laso. Beza ke ngoku aph’ esikolweni, bazo kusixelela thina ukuba ithini na le nto kaBilingual. Sebevela eQamata. RESEARCHER: Kweza bani? RESPONDENT 1: Kodwa kwakukhona noThandeka, nabanye ke. Neofisi yayikhona. RESPONDENT 2: (supporting information): NooSenior Officer (pseud-name). RESPONDENT 1: Ewe. OoSenior Officer, nooDO2 babekhona, noThandeka. UNokhanyo andimkhumbuli yena esiza. Noo-DO2. Nabanye bakwaLanguage endingasabaziyo. . . . RESPONDENT 3: No Mr. T. weLanguage. RESEARCHER: Okay, xa usithi “Neofisi” uthetha ngeDistrict Office? RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: Ewe, ngeDistrict Office.

[[RESEARCHER: “Okay. You have said first the Principal went to Qamata? RESPONDENT 1: Yes. RESEARCHER: And then they--- they came again to this school? RESPONDENT 1: They then came to the school, because when it began, we were told this thing was going to be done in two schools. So that they could see if this was going to be successful. And so they had chosen this school of ours and another school that is in the BD-1 [small rural town]. I have forgotten what its name is. And so they came to our school, to tell us what this bilingual [education] thing is. Already from [the] Qamata [meeting]. RESEARCHER: Who came? RESPONDENT 1: There were Thandeka, and others. And the office was also there. RESPONDENT 2: (supporting information): And also Sister Funeka. RESPONDENT 1: Yes. Sister Funeka, the DO2, and Thandeka were there. I do not remember coming [on that first visit]. And the DO2 and others from Language [Section] whom I no longer remember. RESPONDENT 3: And also Mr. T. of [The] Language [Section]. RESEARCHER: Okay, when you say “and the office” are you referring to the District Office? RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: Yes, to the District Office.]]

The chronology of advocacy events made clear by the conversation in this vignette shows that the big Qamata meeting was the first inclusive session to which school principals were formally invited. Apparently, the teachers already knew by then that their school had been chosen to be one of the two schools in the district to pilot the program. This is clear from the following statement from the teachers focus group (TFG) interview:

102

Kwaphinda kweziwa apha es’kolweni, kuba ukuqala kwayo kwathiwa iza kwenziwa ezikolweni ezibini le nto. Ke ngoku kwakhethwa esi sikolo sethu, nesiny’ is’kolo esingaph’eBD-1 (the small rural town). Ndisilibele ukuba yintoni igama laso. Beza ke ngoku aph’ esikolweni, bazo kusixelela thina ukuba ithini na le nto kaBilingual. Sebevela eQamata.

[[And they then came here to the school, because in its beginning it was said this thing will be done in two schools In order to see if it will be successful. And so our school was chosen, with another school that is in the BD-1 (small rural town). I have forgotten its name. And then they came here to [our] school, to tell us what this bilingual [thing] was. Already from Qamata]]

The statement that begins with the word, “kuba” [[because]] is not introducing a reason, but a fact about something that had happened prior to the event that is mentioned before it. It means that by the time all the officials from the province and the BD-1 education district office came to the school, the teachers already knew that their school had been identified for the piloting. The officials came to explain to the teachers what this thing was that their school had been selected to do. Two facts become clear from this. One is that the MPS was one of the schools most relied upon for trying educational innovations in the district, as previously mentioned. From informal conversations with the teachers at the school, the author learned that the school, small as it was, was an award-winning school in academic performance in general. It was logical then that the newly piloted bilingual education program be tried at a school known for its performance.

The second fact is that this was a top-down decision, first from when the province decided to implement bilingual education, and it was then when the MPS was identified. When the provincial and district officials came to the school it was not to gauge the teachers’ opinion.

It was to explain bilingual education to the teachers.

In addition to the evidence given above for the kind of automatic choice of the MPS for piloting from the very beginning of talks within the district, the two criteria that had been used to

103

choose this school were formally stated as sound administration and very good teachers for foundation and Intermediate Phases. The parents’ focus group, and the school’s SMT member also echoed the view that the school was known as one of the best in the district.

2009. Eastern Cape Establishes a LiEP Unit

As has been said before, major advocacy movements took place in the Province of the

Eastern Cape in 2009. Thandeka carried out her responsibility by getting human and other resources from PRAESA in Cape Town. Data from the DO2, triangulated by data from

Thandeka reveal that Nokhanyo was the strongest in advocacy because she could answer effectively all questions stakeholders asked about the advocated bilingual education, including queries from reluctant skeptics. The DO2 attested that when he had problems in advocacy at the level of school circuits, it was Nokhanyo who could come and answer all the tough questions.

When the man at the helm of the Eastern Cape’s Department of Education, the MEC, received word of Nokhanyo’s power-packed ability to advocate for the bilingual program, he was impressed. After Thandeka’s reports on the advocacy activities confirmed what he had heard, the MEC decided to recruit Nokhanyo to work for the Eastern Cape’s DoE on a permanent basis to implement bilingual education programs as well as to advance other aspects of the LiEP in the province. Here she would work with the employees of the department who were already in the system, and who would serve in an auxiliary capacity. In other words, the department would not have to second people or employ new ones to work with Nokhanyo and

Thandeka. Nokhanyo would train people who were already the department’s employees in various relevant sections, and work with them.

Following a mandate of the country’s National Language Policy Framework (NLPF) approved by the Senate in 2003 (Beukes, 2008), a Language Unit, which later became called the

Language-in-Education-Policy Unit (LiEP Unit), was established. The plan was that Nokhanyo

104

would come and continue with the program, taking it to the actual implementation stage. This would begin in January 2010, as January is the start of the academic year in South Africa. It is worth noting that the Eastern Cape was the first province in the country to comply with the

National Language Policy Framework. The mandated Language Units are to ensure the implementation of the country’s language policy of developing the nine previously disadvantaged African languages in all spheres, including in education.

The operation of the new Unit, staffed by Nokhanyo and Thandeka, began in January

2010. This was the time that had been originally planned to be the beginning of the actual implementation of the bilingual education program at the schools, including the MPS. This meant that the commencement of the implementation was halted for 2010, although schools had already applied, some applications sorted, and some schools selected from the eleven DB-1

District’s circuits.

Nokhanyo was beginning in a new capacity now, where she was entirely responsible for the whole bilingual education program, and all other related issues, not just to assist with advocacy. She realized that there were still many loose ends. With the increased number of piloting schools from eleven to seventy-three, there was need for more planning, preparation of adequate learning and teaching materials, sufficient assistance for teacher training, arrangement and training of teacher support staff, and other logistics.

In the midst of all the preparation for the new Unit, a report was received from the one school that had volunteered for piloting the bilingual education in the BD-3 District. The school principal reported by phone that when parents were briefed about the pending bilingual program, they misunderstood it to mean that their children were going to be taught in isiXhosa only, and threatened to move their children to an all-English medium, African family-run school. The other

105

district, the BD-2 that had been selected for its demographics in school population in a semi- urban area, had not shown active interest. Factors like these led to the Unit’s decision to suspend implementation, and use the year, 2010 for redrawing the plan, making it clearer, setting its operational principles and defining even pedagogic strategies that would ensure the visibility of

English, and demonstrate that it also played a significant role in the children’s education. This was not mother-tongue education, but mother tongue-based bilingual education.

Together with the other preparations, the Language-in Education-Policy Unit (LiEP Unit) also intensified advocacy at all 73 schools. This meant a delay of the implementation also at the already prepared Mzamo Primary School, which started only in 2012. When the author visited the school for data collection, in 2013, Grades 4 and 5 were already in the new strand, the mother tongue- based bilingual education program.

Organization of the Program

This section summarizes stakeholders’ descriptions of the need for the MPS bilingual program, its purpose and goals, and its intended organization.

The Need for the MTBBE Program

In order to have a clear picture of the teachers’ understanding of their school’s need for the program as was advocated by the province, it is necessary to start with their description of the learning and teaching situation at the Foundation Phase (FP), and how the change, and the dimensions it took at the Intermediate Phase (IP) had an impact on the learning and teaching situation at the IP, and how the latter situation resulted in the need for the program. They explained that at the FP all instruction and assessment was in isiXhosa, the learners’ L1. In the words of a response from the teachers’ focus group (TFG),

Imaths bayifunda ngesiXhosa. Bafunde isiXhosa. Bafunde i-life skills ngesiXhosa. Baze ke ngoku bafunde ne-English

106

[[As for math, they learn it in isiXhosa. And they learn isiXhosa [i.e. as a subject, for literacy development]. And they learn life skills in isiXhosa. And then they also learn English]].

The above data about the Foundation Phase is necessary to give a clear picture of Grade

4 needs that the program is designed to meet. The Grade 4 needs included a continuation of the children’s primary language as a language of learning and teaching, ways of lessening the impact of the increased academic load that the children suddenly encountered at Grade 4, an environment of learning English developmentally, and assessments that matched the language of learning and teaching.

In explaining the school’s need for the program, the MPS teachers also revealed the extent to which they understood the rationale behind the program, as one of the teachers gave the explanations reflected in the quotes below, with approving hums and nods from the other members of the teacher focus group (TFG).

Injongo kabilingual . . . Zikhona ezaa poster babeze nazo apha, besithi, umntana, imother-tongue uyifumana esesesuswini. . . . Kodwa ngoku kuyohlukana as ukuba umntana efunda. Kufuneke ukuba ke ngoku umntana makafunde ngesiNgesi xa ephaa kwaGrade 4. . . . ize kube kho nezinye iilearning areas aziqalayo phaa kwaGrade 4. Bafumanisa into’ba bukhon’ ubunzima obuba khona kulo mntana, kuba ngoku uqala ilanguage entsha. . . . zibe sezininzi ezinye iilearning areas.

[[The purpose of bilingual . . . There are posters that they (i.e. government officials) brought here, saying a child gets its mother-tongue while still in the stomach. . . . But now comes the difference when he/she goes to school. The child now has to learn in English when s/he is at Grade 4, . . . and then there are also other learning areas, which he learns for the first time at Grade 4. They (probably, researchers) found that there is difficulty that the child experiences, because now s/he is starting a new language . . . together with many more learning areas]]

The quoted stakeholder explanation refers to the gap in academic English knowledge of children whose primary language is isiXhosa, and who had just emerged from an L1 immersed

Foundation Phase learning and teaching situation. Teachers resorted to code switching as an attempt to promote students’ comprehension in class, but code switching was seen as unfair, as it

107

was still regarded as teaching in English and as a result, assessment was fully in English. The inevitable consequences were failure and reported dropout rates beginning at Grade 4.

Expressing understanding for the need to teach the child in his L1, isiXhosa, as an alternative to English immersion at this early developmental stage of the child, the responding teacher further said,

So, ngoku sizakhe simqale ngesiXhosa lo mntana, ngemother-tongue yakhe. Noxa ke nesiNgesi singayekwanga; kodwa sigxile kakhulu aph’ esiXhoseni.

[[So, now we shall start [teaching] this child in her/his mother-tongue. Although English is also not abandoned; but we concentrate more in isiXhosa [instruction]]].

The response went further to describe the practice of code switching between English and isiXhosa as an aggravating factor that complicated the situation because it did not prepare the children for what they would encounter in exams. In the examinations, all questions were given fully in English and the children were expected to answer fully in English, according to the education policy.

Kuba kufumaniseka int’obana ngamany’amaxesha siyatitsha thina, sithi sititsha ngesiNgesi phaa kwezaa klasi. Kodwa xa sendititsha phaya ndiza kulumela. Ndiza kutitsha nangesiXhosa.”

[Because it is realized that sometimes we teach, thinking we teach in English here in those classes (pointing in the direction of the school’s Grades 4 and 5 classrooms). But when I teach, I mix; I teach also in isiXhosa.]]

The reason the stakeholders gave for the practice of code-switching is this: As they followed the education policy’s mandate to teach all subjects in English from Grade 4, the learners would not understand, nor participate nor even answer a teacher’s questions in the classroom during lessons, especially for math and science. The government officials who were participants of the study described the two subjects as “killer subjects” because of the difficulty of the new concepts that the learners from Grade 4 had to master, while dealing with English as well as an increased number of subjects, at the same time. That is why the bilingual program

108

targeted Grade 4, and was designed to extend the years of L1 instruction at least in the two subjects up to Grade 6.

Another fact that the teachers were made aware of in relation to their code-switching practice, during advocacy, and which emphatically underscored the need for the program, was the inconsistency in the medium of assessment. The standing education policy was that the learners at Grades 4 and upwards must be assessed in English. It may be pointed out at this stage that by assessment, the teachers mainly meant written examinations. So, while the instruction was through a mixture of English and isiXhosa, the teachers adhered to the government’s language policy when it came to assessment. The following aspect of the TFG’s response draws attention to the problem, which resulted in a lack of language balance in assessment:

Kodwa umntana ke ngoku yena, mna … uba ndiyam-assess-a lo mntana, ndiza m- asses-a lo mntana ngesiNgesi. ‘Ca’ba ngoku lo mntana ndimenyusisa umthwalo onzima. . . . kuba mna . . . bendimane nditisha ngesiXhosa, ndimane ndititsha ngesiNgesi. Kodwa xa sekufuneka e-assess-iwe ngoku, u-assess-wa ngesiNgesi. Ndiyamxinanisa ke lo mntana aph’ engqondweni

[[But the child now, when I am assessing her/him, this child, I assess this Child in English. Obviously, I am overloading this child heavily, because as for me, I was teaching in isiXhosa sometimes, and in English at other times. But when s/he has to be assessed now, s/he is assessed in English. I am therefore causing difficulty for this child.]]

This description of the problem of assessment’s lack of validity and how it adversely affected the learners, was accompanied by the following expression of the teachers’ understanding of the solution offered by the bilingual program:

So, bathi ke ngoku lo bilingual uza wunced’ int’ oba abantwana bakhe bacinge kak’hle, umntan’ acinge nangelanguage yakhe.

[[So, they said now this bilingual [education] will help the learner to think properly, thinking also in her/his language.]]

109

All the stakeholders, including the teachers at the MPS gave similar reasons for the necessity for the bilingual education program. Explaining why the bilingual program was found most essential for rural schools like the MPS (as well as for semi-urban schools), Thandeka said,

Ngoba aba bethu, baselokishini nasezilalini, u-introduce-we kwi-English kwa- Grade 3. Sefunda ngayo kwa-Grade 4. Yiyo le nto le program yethu ye-bilingual education iqala kwa-Grade 4. . . . Umngcwabo uphaa kwa-Grade 4.

[[Because these . . . of locations and rural areas, s/he has been introduced to English at Grade 3. S/he learns already in it at Grade 4. That is why this program of ours of bilingual education begins at Grade 4. . . . There is a funeral there, at Grade 4.]]

Likening the inaccessibility of education for the IP, especially the fourth graders, with a funeral, and explaining how the funeral-like, or death-like crisis at Grade 4 comes about,

Thandeka echoed the assertion of the teachers, the DO1, and Nokhanyo that the use of English, the L2, became a barrier to education access. She further explained why the teachers at Grade 4

(and 5 and 6), confronted with a range of eight subjects that were inaccessible when taught in

English, would simply teach by code-switching between English, the language of the education policy, and isiXhosa, the children’s L1. She said,

Uyatitsha ungutishara, umntan’ akuthi phuhlu ngamehlo. . . . Le nto uyithethayo zang’ ayive. Nob’ ubuyithetha nges’Xhosa na futhi, zang’ ayive. Okwes’bini ngoku uyithetha ngesiNgesi. . . . Ancame ke utitshala atitshe nges’Xhosa. . . . Ukuze bave.

[[You, the teacher are teaching, [but] the child just stares at you with [her/his] Eyes. . . . S/he has never heard what you are talking about. Secondly, now you are speaking it in English. . . . And in desperation, the teacher resorts to teaching in isiXhosa. . . . So that they may understand.]]

Thandeka also reiterated other stakeholders’ remark about how much learners are handicapped by the inequity of having to use English for testing and assessments. That was the actual burying of the children, metaphorically speaking:

Uza wuva ingxaki ngoku, xa ngoku e-test-wa. Ku-test-wa nges’Ngesi. Akanaso ngokw’ is’Ngesi sowukhupha laa ntw’ ebeyixelelwe nges’Xhosa. . . . Okokuqala akanasw’ is’Ngesi sowuva lo mbuzo. . . . Noba ke uwubhungcile wawuva,

110

akanas’Ngesi sokuwuphendula. . . . Mhm! Kulapho ke kwenzeka khona umngcwabo phaa kwa-Grade 4.

[[Now watch the problem now, when s/he is tested. The tests are administered in English. S/he now doesn’t have the English language with which to express what s/he was told in isiXhosa. Firstly, s/he does not understand English enough for her/him to understand the question. Though one might be able to understand the question, the problem is how to express her/himself in answering the question…Yes! That is where the funeral takes place, there at Grade 4.]]

What is more, Thandeka went further to explain that she and Nokhanyo had just come across a new study which showed that Grade 4 is the first school level at which school dropout rates are very high. The research said this is when the children begin to hate school. The bilingual program was thus strongly seen as essential to circumvent these trends.

The above were the understandings of the MPS teachers and other stakeholders of why the mother tongue-based bilingual program was necessary, and why it was necessary to start at

Grade 4. Its purpose was understood to be to teach the children in their mother tongue, so as to achieve the educational as well as socio-cultural goals described in the next sub-section. The following words of the teachers in the TFG capture the stakeholders’ understanding of the program’s purpose:

Le bilingual education, phaya eIntermediate Phase, ndingathi yiprogram evumela abantwana abangasithethiyo isiNgesi, ….that is, abantwana olwimi lwabo lusisiXhosa, . . . int’ obana ke ngoku mabafunde ngesiXhosa sabo. Ewe, nesiNgesi sikhona. Kodwa makafunde ngesiXhosa sakhe. Ngoku, phaya kwaIntermediate Phase ingene kwisubject eyimathematics, kwisubject eyi-NS Tech.

[[This bilingual education, at the Intermediate Phase, I can say . . . it is a program that allows children who do not speak English, that is, children whose language is isiXhosa to learn in their isiXhosa [language]. Yes, English is also there. But s/he must learn in her/his isiXhosa [language]. Now, at the Intermediate Phase it started with the subject mathematics, and the subject, N.S. Tech.]]

The reported purpose of the program was to eliminate the causes of high failure rate at the Intermediate Phase, Grades 4, 5, and 6, especially at Grade 4, by removing the language

111

barrier to access to education that is caused when the learners’ primary language is neglected in favor of trying to educate them in English, to which they only have second language affinity.

The Goals of the Program

Stakeholders identified four different goals for the MTBBE program to meet to fulfill its purpose. These are to make it easy for learners to learn math and science and improve performance in the two “killer” subjects; to create a solid base in L1 for L2 learning; to raise learners’ conscience about their language and identity; and to have impact on matric results. The goals are discussed below.

Making math, and natural science and technology (NS&T) accessible.

The first goal of the program is to make education in math and science comprehensible, and thus accessible for the learners, for whom the use of English as the sole LOLT constituted a language barrier to all education. The goal seems to be limited to math and science for now.

There are two reasons for the focus on these two subjects. One is the fact that math and science were chosen because they were said to be the subjects in which the majority of rural (and semi- urban) areas’ learners had the most difficulty. The second reason stated was that teachers and the supporting subject advisers would initially need a lot of support in the transition to teaching mainly in the L1. At the time of this study’s data collection, Nokhanyo was still the only expert in the two subjects who was connected with the bilingual education program. This goal is expressed, among others, in Nokhanyo’s response to a question about the program’s degree of bilingualness, in which she offered this explanation:

Bilingual kaloku means ukuthi you can use isiNgesi as a supportive LOLT, okanye as a supportive resource. Thin’ aph’ es’Xhoseni sisene-gap in terms of the terminology e-develop-wa for i-science e-mathematics. . . . So, because we are a young scientific language, we use i-English to explain, okanye ii-terms mhlawumbi ukuba akunazo ngala mzuzu. Akho tyala xa uthe, mhlawumbi yi-tritration. And want to explain i-tritation. . . . Don’t go out of your way ufun’ ukuthi gqi negama lakho eles’Xhosa eli-purist, kuba utitsha nges’Xhosa. The aim is not to keep

112

English away from the classroom. The aim is to make the content accessible in a language that the child understands. So, if you feel int’ obana for this lesson I can use other material endinayo, and le material yeyes’Ngesi, u can do that.

[[To say] bilingual, means that you can use English as a supportive LOLT, or as a supportive resource. In the isiXhosa language we still have a gap in terms of the terminology that is being developed for science and mathematics. . . . So, because we are a young scientific language, we use English to explain, or [English] terms if you do not have them [in isiXhosa] at that moment. There is nothing wrong if you say, ‘yi-tritation = it is-tritation, when you want to explain this concept, tritation. . . Don’t go out of your way looking for your term, which is purist isiXhosa, just because you teach in isiXhosa. The aim is not to keep English away from the classroom. The aim is to make the content accessible in a language that the child understands. So, if you feel that for this lesson I can use other material that I have, and this material is in English, you can do that.]]

What Nokhanyo is explaining here is the major characteristic of the MTBBE model of bilingual education, namely teaching mainly in isiXhosa, but also using English when necessary to enable children to understand concepts and explanations about the content of the subjects. As we know, the only subjects involved at the moment are the two that the stakeholders call “killer subjects” at Grade 4 upwards, namely math and natural science and technology (NS&T). Evident from the above quotation is the fact that the program’s principle of teaching mainly in the children’s mother tongue and using English as a supportive resource gives the teachers a kind of a carte blanche in the use of English alongside isiXhosa, the L1, the goal being to make content comprehensible for the learners.

Emphasizing the role of language in enabling the learners to grasp the content of academic subjects, Nokhanyo highlighted the centrality of isiXhosa as an L1 and other languages as support to the L1 to achieve the goal of making the content of the two subjects comprehensible to the learners. She put this in the following words:

Remember it is not mother tongue education; it’s mother tongue-based bilingual education. The language of the child is the center, while you pull in other languages to support what is going on.

113

This is one of the most unique features of the bilingual education program of South

Africa’s Province of the Eastern Cape, namely that the main focus of the program is to reach the children educationally, and not to show preference for any one language for the sake of the language. Language becomes a tool to reach the central goal, namely, accessibility of education for the learners.

The same applies to assessment, as attested to by all stakeholders: The language of assessment is in line with that of instruction in the classroom, and its aim is to enable the learners to understand and answer examination questions, and to be able to achieve good results. This is expressed clearly by all stakeholders. For example, Nokhanyo said, when asked about the bilingualness of assessment,

Kaloku, umzekelo, uba kukhw’ igama phaa ebesili-introduce-e nge-English ebantwaneni, une-right yokuba ufake kwii-brackets elaa gama les’Ngesi, kwi- question paper, ukuba lilo abaza likhumbula, uyaqonda? This assessment is not about how much [isi]Xhosa or how much English you know. It is about how much the child knows in mathematics or in science. So, don’t bother yourself too much about bafuneka be-purist, because that’s not how children speak, and that is not the reality of i-surrounding yabo, ne-material oyisebenzisileyo. ... Baba nayo ootishara int’ owufun’ uba, ‘kaloku le nto sis’Xhosa’. So, kancinci, kancinci siyayisusa loo ntw’ ezingqondweni zabo. So, don’t try to keep English away kuba usithi kufundwa nges’Xhosa.

[[Remember, for example, if there is a word there that we introduced in English to the children, you have a right to put in brackets that English words in a question paper, if this is the word/term that they will remember, do you understand? This assessment is not about how much [isi]Xhosa or how much English you know. It is about how much the child knows in mathematics or in science. So, don’t bother yourself too much about the need for purist [terms], because that’s not how children speak, and that is not the reality of their surrounding, and [of] the material you have used. . . . So, don’t try to keep English away because you think you must teach in isiXhosa [only].]]

In her explanation of the program’s focus not being language per se, Thandeka also emphasized the centrality of isiXhosa as a means to reach the goal of content comprehension by pointing out that, in her words,

114

Ngoba i-program yethu thin’ apha k’le ofisi ayiyoyokuba kufundwa is’Xhosa, ngob’ isiXhosa sifundiswa ngesiXhosa. Abanayw’ ingxaki with isiXhosa as a subject. Eyona nto singay apha k’le ofisi kukufundiswa kwezi subjects. . . . nge- mother tongue yabo abantwana.

[[Because our program in this office it is not for teaching of isiXhosa, because isiXhosa is taught in isiXhosa. They do not have a problem with isiXhosa as a subject. What we are actually about in this office is the teaching of these subjects in the mother tongue of the children.]]

Also, in her response to a question directly about the goals of the program Thandeka pointed out that one of the goals was to teach the children in their mother tongue so that they might comprehend math and NS&T concepts and vocabulary. Having shared her view that the promotion of isiXhosa status as mother tongue in the children’s minds should be the first goal, she also said,

Eyesibin’ i-goal . . . yeyokuba i-content ye-subject umntana ayibambe. Especially ezaa concepts. Uba uz’bambe nge-language yakhe, kulaa minyaka yokuqala a- introduce-wa kuzo, angaya nakweyiphi na ilanguage.

[[The second goal . . . is that the child should have insight into the content of the subject. Especially the concepts. If s/he grasped them in her/his own language during the first years when s/he was introduced to them, s/he can go to any other language [as a LOLT]]]

Solid base in L1 for L2 learning.

Another goal was teaching the children in a way that would allow them to develop strong literacy skills in their mother tongue. This would enable them to transfer these skills to learning

English, the second language. The DO2 said, in this regard:

They must have a solid foundation in their mother tongue. Therefore they are likely to acquire other languages.”

The point about teaching the children so that they develop strong literacy skills in their mother tongue was elaborated in the following description of how the emphasized obligation for effective teaching of isiXhosa contributed to the bilingual education program:

115

Kuba kufuneka aqonde int’oba, utitshala wesiXhosa, uyasititsha isiXhosa sakhe phakaqa. Atitshe ukufunda, esiXhoseni. Atitshe Izandi. Atitshe yonk’ into yesiXhosa, khon’ukuze laa mntana azo kwazi ukufunda umyalelo, i-instruction. Kuba i-instruction ibhalwe ngesiXhosa. . . . ʼFuneka siqine nqakasana phay’esiXhoseni.

[[Because the teacher of isiXhosa must make sure that she teaches the language thoroughly. She must teach reading in isiXhosa. She must teach sounds/phonics. She must teach everything of isiXhosa, so that the child must be able to read an instruction (refers to examination instructions on an exam question paper). Because the instruction is written in isiXhosa. . . . We must be strong exactly there in (the teaching of) isiXhosa.

What also becomes clear from the teachers’ description of the goal of giving the children a solid base in their L1, is the evidence that advocacy was based on scientific knowledge about second language learning, particularly transference of literacy skills to L2 learning. In his description of the goal of conscientizing the learners about their L1, the MPS principal also alluded to the fact that the children must know and love for their mother tongue first, as a basis for learning a second language.

In addition, Thandeka explained that the underlying hope and aim of the program design is that the use of English in the predominantly isiXhosa-based instruction at the Intermediate

Phase will enable the transfer of academic insights and language skills to English once the learners reach Grade 7 and up. She said,

Sicinga int’ owuba okwaa kufunda kwabo i-mathematics nges’Xhosa kubalungiselele int’oba bangayo yifunda ke ngoku nges’Ngesi kwa-Grade 7. . . Ngohlobo lokuba bayibambil’ i-concept. Nob’ umvele ngaphi ngoku, asoz’ uyishenxise, uyigungqis’ i-knowledge yakhe ye-area. Soz’ uyigungqis’ i- knowledge yakhe ye-multiplication. And i-terminology sel’ eyibambe ngeso s’Xhosa sibuNgesi. . . . By the time e-exit-a from laa maths yesiXhos’ esiya kwi- maths yes’Ngesi kwa-Grade 7, uza wube enazw’ ii-tools zowu-cope-a nalaa mathematics.

[[We think that their having learned math in isiXhosa has prepared them to go and learn it in English in Grade 7. . . . In the sense that they have grasped the concept. Whichever way you approach her/him now, you will never remove or move her/his knowledge of the area (i.e. subject), . . . [or] of multiplication. And s/he has grasped the terminology in the isiXhosa- mixed-with-English medium. . . . By the time s/he

116

exits from the isiXhosa taught math to English taught math at Grade 7, s/he would already have the tools to cope with that mathematics.]]

This seems to say that as the learners will start learning math and NS&T primarily in their language, they will continue processing new information cognitively in their language and grow up and progress from Grade 4 to 5 and to 6, progressively gaining insights in their language, and gradually integrating these insights with the English to which they are exposed, until they are able to think interactively in the two languages. In this way they will develop a frame of mind that places value on their primary language as well as on English, and this becomes the totality of their linguistic repertoire. And this linguistic repertoire makes them integrated bilinguals, opening the door to all kinds of knowledge, insights and skills.

To conscientize students about their language’s value

Stakeholders also stated the goal of maintaining and promoting isiXhosa as the learners’ and amaXhosa society’s primary language in the learners minds. It was important, in the stakeholders’ views, that the learners hold their language in high regard and see value in it as their language and embrace it as part of their identity. This language-promoting part of the finding seems to be in sharp contrast with the first two goals, in which isiXhosa is said to be only a means to an end. Yet this particular goal-finding is even more robust as it is echoed in the narratives of the MPS teachers and triangulated by views expressed by almost all the other stakeholders, including the MPS principal and the parents focus group, as well as the second provincial official, Thandeka. When the teachers’ focus group was asked how successful they thought the program was, their response expressed a futuristic view that the program would make the children aware that they have learned and grasped math and science in their own language. This is how the response was worded:

Itsh’ukuthi ke ngoku, njengba bekhula [abantwana] nayo, besaz’ u’ba kwi-Natural science sisebenzisa esi siXhosa, nakwimaths siyakwaz’ ukubala, amanani

117

siwachaza ngokuba ngamashumi athe, ngamashumi amane, instead of u-forty, uyayibona? So, baza kuzi-understand-a ke ngoku na ke nezinye, ngokuya isenyuk’ isenyuka baye beyi-understand-a more, ... ngalaa ‘base’ yokuba babeyifumene kwasekuqaleni ezantsi ngesaa siXhosa sabo.

[[This means that, now, as they [,the children,] grow with it, knowing that in natural science we use isiXhosa, and in math we know how to calculate, we describe numbers in terms of ‘tens which are…, tens which are four’ instead of “forty”, you see? So, they will have this kind of understanding . . . as it [i.e., the program] goes up and up. They will understand [the subject areas] more, based on that which they experienced from the beginning in the lower classes in the isiXhosa language.]]

This extract conveys the idea that the success of the program will lie, or lies, (among other things) in the fact that the children will be conscious and proud of having acquired knowledge in math and science, by learning from level to level in their mother tongue, isiXhosa.

The source of pride will include the Foundation Phase grades in which all subjects are taught in isiXhosa. The data emphasize the fact that one of the goals was to raise in the learners’ consciences an attitude of caring about, and prioritizing, their language; and a consciousness of the importance and value of their mother tongue as a basis of their thoughts both for learning academic subjects and for learning a second language, as well as for life in general. This is captured, for example, in the following extract from the interview with the MPS’ principal:

Ngeba ndifuna le nt’ ithi ukubanik’ isazela, . . . ngolwimi lwabo. . . . Bakwaz’ int’ okok’ba kwa-uk’cinga oku bacinge nges’Xhosa as ulwimi lwabo, nge-mother- tongue. Yonk’ into yakho uza wuyenza ngale mother tongue. Kuye ke ngoku kwi- second language, uqale ngale yakho.

[[I am trying to say to give them a conscience . . . about their language. . . . So that they are able, in the first place, to think in isiXhosa as their language, their mother tongue. Everything of yours you will do in the mother tongue. Then you may proceed to the second language, having started with your own language.]]

In explaining the goals of the program, Thandeka referred to the fact that the amaXhosa middle class send their children to formerly whites-only schools, and lamented the disregard for the language and culture that sometimes develops from that. Seeing one of the major goals of

118

the program as restoration of respect for the language in isiXhosa-speaking students’ minds,

Thandeka said,

Eyona imandla i-goal --- Phofu mandithi zimbin’ ezimandla. Abantwana, koku kungakhathaleleki kwes’Xhosa, . . . siphelele kulaa period inye yes’Xhosa ph’ eklasini, bagqibela bebuluza ubuXhosa babo. . . . Futhi isiXhosa sibe yintw’ ejongelwe phantsi, engakhathalelekanga. . . . Nob’ awusazang’ akho nto. . . . Umzekelo ngabantwana abanints’ abafunde phay’ ebelungwini. . . . Futhi ke ngoku ufumanis’ uba naba bethu ke ngokw’ abafunda kwezi z’kolo zes’Xhosa bacing’uba yintw’ ephucuk’leyo le yokungasazi is’Xhosa.

[[The most important goal --- In fact there are two goals. When the language is treated with disregard, an uncaring attitude and little respect, as when it is allocated only one class period, the children, end up losing their attachment to isiXhosa and their culture. It becomes unimportant whether they know the language or not. . . . For example, those many children who studied at the (formerly) whites’ schools. . . . Now, you find that the students in our schools also think that it sophisticated not to know isiXhosa.]]

Although in the long-windedness of the above quote the actual goal is not directly formalized, there is allusion to it. The goal is to ensure that the children develop a high regard for isiXhosa as their mother tongue, carrier of their culture, and marker of their identity. Nor should they think it is sophisticated to not know their own language well. This care for the language and expression of the need for restoring its value in isiXhosa-speaking learners’ minds shows that language maintenance and promotion of the language are central to the program. This is contrary to the education-only-focused goal described above.

Even when Thandeka justifies the LiEP Unit’s not focusing on supporting language teachers for isiXhosa teaching, she emphatically says the language will gain prominence and status because of the principle and thus requirement to teach the two languages effectively. She also points out that the use of the language as a medium of instruction for math and NS&T also benefits the language as it gains a significant and considerable educational domain. This is one of the ways in which the program must lead to learners’ consciousness about the importance of their mother tongue. This is expressed in the following extract:

119

Eyona nto singay apha k’le ofisi kukufundiswa kwezi subjects, nge-mother tongue yabo abantwana. Sawutsho si-gain-e ke nesiya siseklasin’ is’Xhosa. Sawutsho si- gain-e naso esaa s’Xhosa ngoba ngokw’ abantwana bayaqina elwazini lwabo lwes’Xhosa.

[[What we are actually about in this office is the teaching of these subjects in the mother tongue of the children. The isiXhosa language learned and taught in class will also gain/benefit by the language’s use as a LOLT, because the children become stronger in the knowledge, and more frequent in the use, of their language, isiXhosa]]

Improving matric results.

Stakeholders also expressed a fourth goal; to have a good impact on matric results.

Participants expressed the belief that if learners catch math and science concepts at early stages of education, they will grow up with the basic conceptual understandings and build upon them from grade to grade, until matric. By time the time they reach matric they will have a firm foundation to learn and perform well at that level and beyond. Thus, the failure rate there will be reduced too. For example, the MPS’s teacher for IP math put it this way: <>

Thandeka captured this goal by describing the disadvantage of L2 math instruction on learner comprehension of the subject. This is what she said as she was elaborating on the reasons for the choice of districts in which to pilot the implementation of the MTBBE program, and the choice of Grades 4, 5 and 6:

Baqala phaa ukusicaphukela [isikolo]. Iye ke ngok’ le gap iy’ ikhula, iy’ ikhula, iy’ikhula, iy’ ikhula . . . ngoba kaloku the more engasaz’ esi siNgesi, the more engayibambi laa concept ye-multiplication. . . . And ungakwaz’ ukumultiply-a awuzu zaz’ ii-fractions. Ungazazi ii-fractions awuzu yaz’ i-mathematics. . . . And kuthwa ke ngoku ukuyo phuma kwa-matric nezaa trigonometry. Kuthwa i- trigonometry awusoz’ uz’ uyazi ungakhange uzaz’ ii-fractions. And ii-fractions zi- introduce-wa phaa kwa-Grade 4. . . . Ingxaki ye-mathematics yint’oba i- hierarchical gqitha. Awukwaz’ us’bamb’ i-step sesibini us’phosile esok’qala. And xa ungakwaz’ uku-multiply a soz’ ukwazi uku-divide-a. Into yakwa-mathematics . . . inxibelelana too much.

[[That is where they begin to hate it [i.e. school]. And this gap grows gradually, . . . because the more difficulty s/he experiences with the language, English, the more s/he fails to grasp the concept of multiplication. . . . And if you don’t know how to

120

multiply you won’t understand fractions. If you don’t know fractions you won’t know mathematics. . . . And, as they say, this gap affects your understanding of matric math, with its trigonometries. They say you will never understand trigonometry without knowledge of fractions. And fractions are introduced there at Grade 4. The problem with math is that it is very hierarchical. You cannot grasp a second step without grasping the first one. And if you can’t multiply you can’t divide. Mathematics is too interwoven.

This vivid scenario was meant to illustrate the need for, and importance of, the bilingual program and for it to be introduced at Grade 4. This would ensure that the child understands the mathematical (and also scientific and technological) concepts, formulae, vocabulary, and operations at this early stage. The learner would then move up gradually into the higher grades with adequate math knowledge. Otherwise, the use of English prior to the introduction of the

MTBBE program, led to learners having gaps of knowledge in math (and NS&T, by extension).

The gap became wider as they moved to the higher grades, until at matric the damage was too much to be harnessed. The implication however, was that if the learners had been given math instruction in their own language, such a sorry scenario, which led to learners hating school, and some quitting, could have been avoided. Similarly, the high failure rates and dropout rates up to matric level, could be greatly reduced.

Supporting the above scenario is another description of how grasping math concepts, for example, were expected to help the students do better in math even at matric. The following extract is from a response about the goals from the DO2, who said:

Uyabona, mas’thathe i-mathematics. I-mathematics it’s something e-build-wa kwi- foundation. I-simple i-mathematics: four basic operations; four basic operation: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Yile eyenziwa in the Intermediate nakwi-Foundation Phase, okok’ba umntana a-understand-e kakuhle. Okwes’bini i- mathematics it’s about understanding the problem scenario. You can’t just answer a mathematical problem having not understood the problem scenario, u’ba yintoni le ngxaki kuthiwa mandiyi-solve-e apha. So, u’b’ a:’ bantwan’ aba bayibambe apha kwi-Foundation, baya wuqhuba kak’hle naphaya kwi-matric, because i-foundation baza wube benayo.

121

[[You see. Let us take mathematics. Mathematics is something you build from the foundation. Mathematics is simple: four basic operations; four basic operation: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. These are done at the Intermediate and Foundation Phase, so that the child should understand well. Secondly, mathematics it’s about understanding the problem scenario. You can’t just answer a mathematical problem having not understood the problem scenario, namely what the problem is that I am required to solve here. S, if these children grasp it at the Foundation [Phase], they will do well also at matric, because they will be having the foundation.]]

Though not mentioning matric expressly, the MPS teachers’ focus group alluded to it as they elaborated on their response to an interview question about the success of the program. This elaboration speaks about the fact that the program enables the children to learn academic concepts and other vocabulary in their mother tongue from the start and to acquire more knowledge and insights as they moved up in grade levels:

Itsh’ukuthi ke ngoku, njengba bekhula [abantwana] nayo, besaz’ u’ba kwi-natural science sisebenzisa esi siXhosa, nakwimaths siyakwaz’ ukubala, amanani siwachaza ngokuba ngamashumi athe, ngamashumi amane, instead of u-forty, uyayibona? So baza kuzi-understand-a ke ngoku na ke nezinye, ngokuya isenyuk’ isenyuka baye beyi-understand-a more, ... ngalaa ‘base’ yokuba babeyifumene kwasekuqaleni ezantsi ngesaa siXhosa sabo.

[[This means that, now, as they [, the children,] grow with it, knowing that in natural science We use isiXhosa, and in math we know how to calculate, we describe numbers in terms of ‘tens which are… tens which are four’ instead of “forty”, you see? So, they will understand, in others as well, as it [i.e., the program] goes up and up, they will understand [the subject areas] more, in that base which they experienced from the beginning in the lower classes in the isiXhosa language.]]

In stakeholders’ opinions, all these goals would be achieved by teaching the children using mainly the language they were speaking as they were growing up, namely, their mother tongue, isiXhosa, and using English as a resource language to support their learning. This support would be to simplify the meaning of isiXhosa L1 terms if necessary as well as to keep the learners aware of English terms for the concepts they are learning in the language they already know. All the stakeholders welcomed the program’s principle that, in the DO1’s words,

122

“English is not banned from the classroom.” That was why all were emphasizing their understanding of the fact that the program is not a mother-tongue model, but a mother tongue- based bilingual education (MTBBE) model.

Program Scope and Principles

This section describes the scope of the MTBBE program in terms of the grades and subjects involved in it. The section also describes the principles upon which the program is based, as the information pointing at them emerged from the data. They are principles on which the program operates, and were part of the information given to teachers during professional development workshops. In the following paragraphs, the description begins with the scope of the program.

The mother tongue-based bilingual education program is an intervention aimed mainly at eliminating high failure rate, especially in math and science and technology (NS&T) at the

Intermediate Phase (IP), Grades 4, 5, and 6. It involves the teaching and assessment of the two

“killer,” yet highly weighted subjects, mainly in isiXhosa, the mother tongue of the learners, with

English used as a language of learning and teaching in a supportive role to enhance comprehensibility. The second language’s role therefore is to supplement, whenever necessary, the L1. This is because the organizers of the program, the two provincial officials, are of the opinion that the learners’ L1, isiXhosa, is still a “young scientific language,” in the words of

Nokhanyo, the leading provincial official. The other six subjects are taught in English, following the mainstream education policy.

The first principle of the program is that math and NS&T are taught mainly in isiXhosa, with the use of English as a supportive resource. The second principle is that, in the words of all the participants, “English is not banned from the classroom” when teaching and assessing the two subjects, although instruction is mainly in isiXhosa. This principle lends a unique feature to

123

this bilingual education model, which is new in South Africa. This feature is the support of one language with another in recognition of the linguistic reality of the children’s life experiences from which English is not totally absent, given the advent of television and modern technology such as cellphones, It is mainly this feature, coupled with the teaching of the other six

Intermediate Phase (IP) subjects in English, and the possibility of exiting the bilingual strand and joining the mainstream English immersion at Grade 7, that distinguishes the program from a mother tongue program of education. Hence the emphasis expressed by the study’s stakeholders that this is a mother tongue-based bilingual education (MTBBE) program.

The third principle is that the two languages, isiXhosa and English, must be taught effectively as learning subjects in their respective classrooms so that the children develop appropriate grade-level literacy and proficiency in both, albeit at different levels. The emphasis is on the fact that the children need to know the language so that they are able to understand assessment questions and be able to answer them.

The MTBBE program model therefore is based on a language planning and policy (LPP) that is different from the language policy and planning situation for the Foundation Phase namely

Grades R, 1, 2, and 3, where all learning and teaching is in the L1, isiXhosa only, and English is only a learned subject. At this phase, stakeholders point out, English is introduced first in simple, elementary vocabulary at Grade R, and gradually increasing by grade level until it is a full subject by Grade 3. In this way, the children start becoming familiar with the English language in a non-submerged way from Grade R. Stakeholders also explained that the MTBBE is also not for the Senior Phase (SP), namely, Grades 7, 8 and 9. The policy here is that all teaching, assessments and examinations must be in English. The Senior Phase therefore, at the MPS, is an

English immersion phase. When asked to define the bilingual program, and to name the grades to

124

which the program applies, the teachers at the MPS gave similar answers in various ways. The following extracts from the teacher’s focus group represent the various responses to the question:

Le bilingual education, phaya eIntermediate Phase, . . . yiprogram evumela abantwana abangasithethiyo isiNgesi, that is, abantwana olwimi lwabo lusisiXhosa, ibavumele int’ obana ke ngoku mabafunde ngesiXhosa sabo. Ewe, nesiNgesi sikhona. Kodwa makafunde ngesiXhosa sakhe. Ngoku, phaya kwaIntermediate Phase ingene kwisubject eyimathematics, kwisubject eyi-NS Tech.”

[[This bilingual education, there at the Intermediate Phase, . . . it is a program that allows children who do not speak English, that is, children whose language is isiXhosa, it allows them to learn in their isiXhosa language. Yes, English is also there. But s/he must learn mostly in her/his isiXhosa language. Now, at the Intermediate Phase it is applied to the subjects, math and NS Tech.]]

The above extract supports the scope as described in this finding. The following extract supports the facts of the bilingualness and the scope of the program: it explains that only the two subjects, math and NS&T, are taught in the L1. The rest are still taught in English:

Zezo ke ngoku ezisephambili, esisazititsha ngesiXhosa. Ezinye ezi zona zisatitshwa ngesiNgesi. Yiyo ke ngoku le nto kuthiwa bilingual, kuba zikhona ezititshwa ngesiNgesi, zikhona ezititshwa ngesiXhosa. Nathi, njengokuba imaths siyititsha ngesiXhosa, sikhe silumele ngelinye ixesha nangesiNgesi, ukwenzela ukuba umntana azo kuva ncakasana.”

[[Those are the ones that are being taught in isiXhosa (referring to math and NST). The rest are still taught in English. That is why we say “bilingual,” because there are those that are taught in English, and there are those that are taught in isiXhosa. Also, as we teach math in isiXhosa, we sometimes mix with English, so that the child may understand thoroughly.]]

According to the following words from the teachers, Grades 7 to 9 are not yet part of the

MTBBE:

Asikeva nto ke ngoku, ukuba xa besenz’ uGrade 7 baza wuqhubeleka uBilingual na. And whether again baphinde komnye unyaka bathi Grade 8, bathi Grade 9. Asikeva nto.

[[We have not heard anything yet whether the bilingual program will be phased in at Grades 7, 8, 9.]]

125

Nokhanyo and Thandeka actually explained that according to this model, the learners would exit the bilingual education program at Grade 7 and join the national policy-based mainstream education system, which is English immersion for all subjects.

Program Implementation

Stakeholders described a number of activities that take place in different areas of the implementation of the MTBBE program in relation with the Mzamo Primary School (MPS) as well as the triangulation site, the Siyazama Primary School (SPS). The major practices reported were professional development, learning and teaching materials development, classroom practices, and assessment.

Professional Development

Professional development consisted of the training of in-service teachers and subject advisers in bilingual education knowledge and in translation and terminology development for the translation of English workbooks to isiXhosa.

Bilingual Education Knowledge

At the provincial level, first the question of human resources, and the necessary qualifications for working with bilingual education, was a concern. Thandeka, the first provincial officer to be given the responsibility, emphasized her own initial lack of knowledge about, and qualification for, bilingual education and its implementation. She had to handle matters about bilingual education when she was mandated by the Eastern Cape Department of

Education (ECDoE) to be a liaison and coordinating officer representing the Department in the

ABLE bilingual education program initiated by an NGO in one school in the province.

When she was given this responsibility, the only professional experience she had that was somewhat relevant to bilingual education implementation, was that she had been a curriculum specialist and was at the time, in teacher development. With regard to qualifications, she reported

126

that she had never even heard of the concept of bilingual education. Although she had both isiXhosa and English as university majors, the study, as well as teaching of these languages at schools in South Africa for African people, were treated as separate subjects, never as a knowledge base for handling bilingual education.

It was through her duties as a representative of the Department at the Plasini School project that she acquired knowledge of bilingual education from PRAESA, in Cape Town.

PRAESA provided Thandeka with bilingual education materials that formed the basis of her learning about bilingual education. Yet Thandeka was the sole official of the Province of the

Eastern Cape’s Department of Education responsible for finding ways of introducing the bilingual education program to other districts of the ECDoE. These were the beginnings of

Thandeka’s acquaintance with bilingual education. Details about how she sought and got knowledge of bilingual education are discussed under the historical foundations theme.

When Nokhanyo was recruited as Director of the Language-in Education Policy Unit, it was on the basis of her bilingual education knowledge and expertise in advocacy. The province needed these kinds of expertise and services, as Thandeka reported. Requiring prior training in bilingual education for teachers at the MPS was never a question because the implementation plan of the provincial LiEP Unit included training teachers for bilingual education in workshops that took place at the beginning of each school term. As reported by all stakeholders, the two provincial officials undertook training of the in-service teachers and the support-giving subject advisers, through workshops that were attended once per term, in other words, four times a year.

The training was for two purposes. One was the training in the principles of the program, as well as in the specific ways of using language in teaching and assessing the learners in the two subjects that are covered by the program. The second part of the training at workshops was to

127

translate the nationally provided workbooks for math and NS&T from English to isiXhosa, the program’s main language of learning and teaching (LOLT). The teachers and the DO2, the subject adviser for science who worked closely with the MPS and other implementing schools, reported that teachers were trained in the methods of bilingual education instruction. Subject advisers who are experts in the two subjects involved in the bilingual education program gave further support throughout the year.

The teaching methodology was said to consist of teaching in isiXhosa, and giving transliterations of English words for the learned concepts at Grade 4 and 5, while beginning to use actual English terms too at Grade 5, without complicating learning for the children; and using actual English terms in place of transliterations in Grade 6. English word-transliterations, where fitting, and actual English words, where fitting, were to be given in brackets in examination papers. The reason for this, as explained to the teachers, was so that learners could have a reference if they needed it during examinations.

Learning and Teaching Materials (LTMs) Development

The provincial and district officials spoke about how central the issue of LTMs was to the decision to implement the bilingual education program. The ECDoE leaders were unwilling at first to spread the piloting of the bilingual education program too widely in the province when there were no learning and teaching materials yet. Again one of the reasons for the delay of implementation by the LiEP Unit after it had been established and staffed with at least two full- time people, was consideration of the sufficiency of the LTMs now that there were 73 schools instead of eleven schools ready to pilot. Also the DO1 mentioned the fact that even though the

BD-1 District Office management welcomed the piloting of the program in their district; they were at first skeptical regarding the issue of availability of LTMs. This was a concern for almost

128

everybody; Nokhanyo and Thandeka devised a strategy for an initial provision of materials, namely the training of teachers for materials development.

The other major implementational practice that was reported to take place in the MTBBE program was the development of learning and teaching materials. The two main avenues of materials development for the program were translation and book printing and publishing. The former was at an advanced stage at the time of data collection in 2013. Negotiations with a publisher for the latter were also at an advanced stage.

How translation of LTMs took place

Some of the teachers in the piloting schools, including the MPS, were involved in translating math and NS&T workbooks from English to isiXhosa. The provincial officials made the training for translation a part of the workshops during which teachers and subject advisers were also trained in the principles and the teaching and assessment methods of the bilingual education program. Nokhanyo and Thandeka, the LiEP Unit officials, did this in the quarterly workshops they ran. During discussions of math and NS&T concepts and creation of isiXhosa terms for these concepts, isiXhosa language experts, including representatives of the provincial office of the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB), also supported the teachers, .

From the teachers’ focus group at the MPS, we learned that the training took place from

2012, occurring once per school term. We also learned about one of the main principles that they were taught; to work collaboratively as a group teaching one subject, to discuss the concepts and terms created, and to come to a consensus as to which term to use for each concept, in case of more than one possibility. The MPS’ teacher focus group also said that

Senziwa ezaa wekhshophu ke ngoku, zokuchaza isigama, . . . Kangangokuba ngoku sikwiphulo lokuba sitolike iiworkbook ze-N.S. Tech, ezesiXhosa iiworkbooks. Ezi zisuka kwarhulumente. Sele sizitolikile ke zona ezemathematics Ngoku sitolika ezikaGrade 4 and 5, eze-N.S. Tech, ukwenzel’uba abantwana umtitshe, umtitshe, aye kwiworkbook, okwenza umsebenzi kwiworkbook.”

129

[[We attended the workshops for describing the vocabulary, . . . So much that right now we are busy translating NS.&T workbooks, to isiXhosa. The workbooks that come from the government. We have already translated those for math. Currently, we are translating the Grades 4 and 5 N.S. Tech ones, so that the children can be taught, and then go to work on their own from the workbooks.]]

From this extract and other stakeholder narratives, it is evident that the main purpose of the training in the workshops was development of isiXhosa terminology for math and NS&T.

Reference has already been made to the program’s three principles with regard to the use of isiXhosa and English in instruction and assessment. From one of the math teachers involved, we learn how much time and effort the translation took, and the kind of collaboration that took place among the teachers in each subject. The most important report to make about the DO2’s experience with the translation was the unintended result of the time spent together, discussing and describing the concepts in isiXhosa. This process led to everyone gaining deeper insights into some of the concepts in the two learning areas/subjects, math and NS&T. The exercise turned out to be a forum for the discovery of hitherto unnoticed gaps and for the opportunity to help each other —teachers and subject advisers — to gain deeper insight as to how best to support the teachers moving forward.

It was not only at the workshops that the teachers produced learning and teaching materials. When isiXhosa versions of the workbooks were still not available, teachers were also translating those sections and tasks that fell into the lesson plans on a daily basis. In such cases, teachers would teach in isiXhosa, and if there were anything the children needed to reference in the workbooks for the two subjects, they would dictate isiXhosa versions of those portions or tasks to the learners. The learners would write these in the appropriate space in the workbook which was otherwise still in English. This presented the children with a unique opportunity to develop connections between what the workbook said in English and how it was said in isiXhosa. In this way one of the principles of the MTBBE model, namely to provide English

130

equivalents next to isiXhosa terms, was fulfilled. This maintained the connections and a possibility of constant back and forth reference between the two languages for the learners. The teachers reported this as beneficial for the learners.

The DO2 narrated his other part in the translation and development of LTMs. He assisted in the LTMs development by providing the NST teacher whose subject’s workbook had not been translated yet with CDs of translated portions of the workbook covering a considerable period of the term. From the CD, the teacher was able to print for herself a hardcopy to use in lesson planning, as well as in the classroom.

Bilingual textbooks as materials

The translation of workbooks was not the only way of developing LTMs. The LiEP Unit reported that they had approached a book publishing company and asked them to publish isiXhosa-English bilingual textbooks for math and natural science and technology, exclusively for the MTBBE program of the MPS, and the other piloting schools in the district. Nokhanyo remarked that this was a breakthrough because the small number of textbooks that would be produced, at the moment, made such a project not very attractive, commercially speaking. The bilingual books were expected to be available by the beginning of 2014, so that the children would also have textbooks for the two subjects in the program in addition to the translated workbooks.

Though the third type of learning and teaching materials were not developed locally, but were provided nationally, they deserve mention here because they played a role in the translation practices reported above. As has become evident, the national Department of Basic Education provided workbooks for all subjects, including math and NS&T. The availability of these workbooks made the workload of the MTBBE program lighter; since the children were continuing to learn from the same curriculum as their mainstream counterparts and the English

131

texts were readily available for translation. This not only made the MTBBE piloters’ work easier; it also ensured that the children in the bilingual stream would continue in the same curriculum as all IP learners nationwide. They would just be learning the two subjects mainly in their mother tongue, supported by English. The other materials were bilingual dictionaries, which the teachers said were also provided nationally. Dictionaries that had been produced earlier under the auspices of the Pan South African Board (PanSALB) in collaboration with the

Language Service section of the National Department of Arts and Culture already existed.

Classroom Practices

Stakeholders’ perspectives on the MTBBE program with regard to ways to teach the bilingual classroom learners included the method of how to use the L1 and the L2 in teaching math and natural science and technology (NS&T). They reported that isiXhosa, the L1, was the main language to use to teach and assess the children. But English visibility in the classroom was also important for both comprehensibility and keeping the children familiar with English. As isiXhosa featured more predominantly in the classroom, inclusion of cultural aspects was inevitable. The visibility of English was effected through translanguaging in the form of use of

English transliterated forms and sometimes actual English terms integrated with isiXhosa, and the inevitable invocation of isiXhosa cultural aspects from the learners’ lived experiences to illustrate math and science and technology concepts and processes. Translanguaging also occurred in student-teacher and student-student interaction during math revision periods in the combined Grades 4 and 5 classrooms.

L1 and L2 roles in math and science instruction

The learners’ primary language, isiXhosa, was predominantly used to teach math (maths in South African terms) and natural science and technology (NS&T), in combined Grades 4 and

132

5 classes. In the classrooms, isiXhosa was more frequently spoken. But the teachers deliberately included transliterated forms, as well as actual English words to name concepts and processes.

The teachers would also use both isiXhosa and English when explaining something the students did not understand, or when interacting with students involved with calculations during revision for coming examinations. Among others, this happened in the combined Grades 4 and 5 at the MPS and at the SPS triangulation school. In both schools the two grades were combined and taught together, reportedly because of a shortage of teachers due to the government’s teacher rationing. The teachers also regularly spoke about special math concepts in isiXhosa and then in transliterated English forms. Here are examples:

.ummandla = ieriya (area); inkqu-nto = imatha (matter); unxantathu = itrayengile

(triangle); ummongomoya = ioksijini (oxygen); intaba-mlilo = ivolkheyino (volcano), and others.

Then the actual English words, which are in parentheses in the examples above, were spoken at Grades 4 and 5 in their actual English pronunciation. In examination papers, English words like these had to be given in brackets next to isiXhosa versions of concepts thought to be difficult to remember.

In these examples translanguaging enables free speech in a language system that has features from both languages, isiXhosa and English, but is not an absolutely “pure” form of either language at the time of learning. The new system makes sense in its context and makes learning and teaching flexible and easy, as teachers and learners do not have to think of pure isiXhosa or English. The integration of the two languages in these simple examples has been effected by complex lexical, morphological, and phonological adaptation processes affecting both languages. Lexically, isiXhosa acquires noun stems based on English but no longer typically English as they change pronunciation and form in the morphological and phonological

133

processes explained here. Morphologically, English nouns are spoken with noun prefixes typical of isiXhosa nouns. Phonologically, there is the phonological remolding of English diphthong vowel sounds into clear isiXhosa-like syllables (e.g. area becomes ieriya; triangle becomes itrayengile; volcano becomes ivolkheyino); the changing of some English consonant clusters to syllables with vowels, e.g. /ngl/ becomes –ngile at the end of the noun itrayengile, originating in the English noun, triangle; the changing of the quality and pronunciation of English vowels, giving them a more isiXhosa pronunciation and quality; as well as the formation of isiXhosa noun-stems that begin with syllabic vowels, a form not typical of isiXhosa noun stems, and the adaptation by isiXhosa of English-originating consonant clusters untypical of isiXhosa, as in /tr/ of the isiXhosa-English noun, itrayengile.

Simple English sentences were introduced from time to time by the teacher who also led the students to speak by asking simple questions, no doubt which had been taught before. This was observed in Teacher M’s Grades 4 and 5 classrooms at the MPS.

As Nokhanyo, the provincial official said, English was therefore used as a “supportive

LOLT [or] supportive resource.” It was used as a resource language when a revived or a newly created isiXhosa term was not easily comprehensible for the learners. Another reason given for using transliterated words, or actual English words at appropriate grade levels, was to keep the connection with the content, which is still English based, so that the learners would not be at a loss when they transferred to other schools, which might not be implementing bilingual education at the time. A third reason was to help learners gradually develop and maintain knowledge of English, since after three years of study in the Intermediate Phase, they would go on to Grades 7, 8 and 9 of the Senior Phase where English immersion was followed according to the country’s education policy. Therefore, interaction in the classrooms between the teachers and

134

the learners reflected these principles, which were laid out as foundational principles for implementation of the MTBBE program.

Inclusion of cultural aspects

Another important feature of classroom practice was that instruction included aspects of the isiXhosa culture. This inclusion of cultural aspects is cognizant of the fact that language in the isiXhosa-speaking society is a carrier of the culture with which it is intertwined. The use of isiXhosa to teach math and science in the MTBBE at the MPS encouraged application of some concepts of the two subjects to the children’s daily lives.

As reported by the teachers and all four government officials in interviews, and as the author observed in classroom visits, references were made to things existing in children’s home surroundings when talking about some math problems. For example a question referred to a child’s grandfather wanting to fence his rectangular garden. The question required the class to calculate the number of meters of fence necessary for that job, as well as the total price. The round huts shape was utilized for talking about area and circumference calculations, and so on.

Translation in classroom

This is a classroom practice in the MTBBE program that began because of a need, but is important to report as part of the finding because it explains pedagogic activities as part of the what and how of local practices. It therefore contributes to answering the study’s research questions and thus adds knowledge that is important to document. Translation from English to isiXhosa became an important classroom practice in the MTBBE program to circumvent the shortage of isiXhosa versions of learning materials in math and natural science and technology

(NS&T). Teaching in the mother tongue had to begin when the program had been introduced. It has already been pointed out that while the workbooks for math and for NS&T were still awaiting translation in the bilingual teacher training workshops, teachers had to use translation as

135

part of their classroom practices. This was necessary so as to provide the students with an isiXhosa version, since they had to be taught math and natural science and technology (NS&T) in their L1, isiXhosa.

Though it became a strategy to deal with momentary shortage of LTMs that were still being prepared, it involved the understanding of both L1 and L2, and transference of knowledge to learners directly from one language to another. Teachers translated those parts of the lessons and assessment tasks that they wanted to use in their teaching day by day. They then asked the learners to write in available spaces in the workbooks close to the relevant section or task, the translations as the teachers dictated them. This happened after the lesson on a particular topic had been taught in class, and the task explained in isiXhosa orally. It is important to point out that the teacher still constitutes the main component of the learning and teaching environment in the classroom.

Transitional Practices

The MTBBE program of the MPS is a transitional model in that children move from the first three years of total L1 instruction and assessment to the next three years of being taught bilingually, and from there to the next three years of total English immersion, according to the

LPP operating in the education system at the school. Expecting that there were instructional strategies for smooth transitioning at each exit point (namely, Grades 3 and 6) and even at each destination class (viz., Grades 4 and 7), an inquiry into these transitional practices was made.

The overall answer was that there were no specific pedagogic methods that had been directly planned to help learners’ transition from one phase to another, in spite of the different media of instruction at each phase and of the increased academic load from Grade 4 onwards. The SPS principal went so far as to express appreciation for the inquiry into such strategies as it gave him an idea to discuss with colleagues in a principals’ forum in the district. However, the teachers

136

asserted that the inter-related methods employed at each of the two lower phases were transitional in nature, and this seemed to be so to a considerable extent as they explained it and as it seen in classroom observations. These methods are discussed briefly in the next few paragraphs.

Teaching at Foundation Phase (FP)

The methods used at Foundation Phase (FP) are discussed at some greater detail as they are a micro representation of methods that could be seen as assisting transition for the learners from the isiXhosa immersion Foundation Phase to the isiXhosa –supported-by-English

Intermediate Phase (IP), and later to the English immersion Senior Phase (SP) of Grades 7, 8, and 9. The data for FP teaching methods came from the teachers’ focus group, the author’s observations in the Grades R and Grade 1 classroom, the author’s conversations with the Grade

R teacher, as well as in observations in the combined Grades 4 & 5, and 6 & 7 classrooms. These data show that instruction in the Foundation Phase was entirely in isiXhosa. For example, one of the ways of learning literacy was by learning the alphabet based on isiXhosa words. The teacher had a list of the letters of the alphabet where each letter was matched with an isiXhosa word. The children used that word to name the letter. For example, /m/ was named /mama/, an isiXhosa word that means, “mother”. The letter /b/ may be represented by the word /bala/ which means,

“count.” The vowel /a/ was represented by the borrowed term, /apile/ which means “apple.”

Borrowed terms in the language are defined as those that have over a long time become part of the day-to-day vocabulary, and have been phonologically adapted to isiXhosa pronunciation and thus orthography. The isiXhosa letter, /bh/ may be represented by /bhala/ which means, “write”.

The same process continues up to the letter /z/. In-between, letters that are characteristic of isiXhosa are also included, like the above-mentioned /bh/, and others like /ny/ = /inyama/

“meat”, /th/ = thatha “take”, etc.

137

Phonics lessons were based on this alphabet. When the children were taught some simple words of English, they learned the spelling of the English words by speaking the sounds/letters in the form of isiXhosa words. For instance, the word for “table” might be spelled using isiXhosa words as follows: /t/ = /tata/, /a/ = /apile/, /b/ = /bala/, /l/ = /lala/, /e/ = /emele/. (tata = address form for “father/dad”). The full form of the noun has an initial vowel, namely, u-, as in /utata/.

The English equivalents of the other alphabet-representing words are written in brackets next to each such word. They are: /apile/ (apple); /bala/ (count); /lala/ (sleep); /emele/ (water-bucket).

After spelling it like this, each word is then pronounced in its English form. The children are further assisted in knowing names of objects by seeing the labels/names of pictures of the objects concerned. Such pictures were pinned to the wall and all around the classroom. So, for instance after spelling the word for “table” in the above way, they looked at the picture of the object and saw an object they knew, and whose isiXhosa name they grew up speaking, namely “itafile”.

Thus in this way, as well as by association, the child would learn that the object s/he already knew in isiXhosa as “itafile” is called “table” in English.

This enabled the children to associate sounds with words they knew naturally from their environments. Therefore, English was introduced by couching it in isiXhosa, the language of the children. Also the simple math they learn is in isiXhosa accompanied by simple English transliterations.

Although this illustration is from the Grade R classroom observation, this and other methods of learning and teaching literacy were used in all FP grades, with grade level appropriateness, with a conscious aim to ensure sufficient literacy development by end of Grade

3 and beginning of Grade 4. This became apparent from, among others, the MPS’ Grades 4 and 5

138

math teacher (Teacher M)’s narration of a strategy the school agreed upon for reducing the load that causes academic shock for the children when they reach Grade 4. This is what she said:

Ngoku, njengba eyitransition nje, kufuneka etitshwe ngesiNgesi lo mntana; uqhele isiXhosa. Kufuneka lo mntana umtshintshe iwriting; uqhele ukuprinta. Yile nto ke ngoku kufuneka nihlale phantsi nisisikolo, nivumelane ke ngoku, nenze iipolisi zenu, niyazi int’ obana, ... abethu abantwana sithand’ int’ obana bathi bephaa kwaGrade 3, . . . nakwaGrade 2 at least, bayiqalise icursive. Ukwenzela ukuba bathi befika kwaGrade 4, ube sowulungisa wena int’ okuba mayibe yeyiphi i-size, kwaGrade 4. Bangafiki bacinezeleke, ulungise icursive, ube ukhumsha nokukhumsha, loo nto, zibhandane.”

[[Now, as it (Grade 4) is a transition, this child has to be taught in English; s/he is used to isiXhosa [LOLT]. You have to change the writing to cursive when s/he is used to printing. That is why you, as a school, must … agree on a policy, … that you start teaching cursive writing to your children (i.e. the learners) at Grade 3, . . . and even at Grade 2 at least, so that at Grade 4 you only help them learn the size [of letters]. So that they do not have to adjust to a new LOLT and a new way of writing, the cursive writing, which is heaping of new things to learn]]

The MPS teachers made an agreement among themselves that the Foundation Phase teachers must make sure that by the end of Grade 3 the children must have acquired and mastered the skill to write cursively, as the teaching and learning of this skill takes much time and effort, and only adds to the load the children experience at Grade 4. It is evident from the account on this kind of school wide collaboration that there is synergy in the teaching of the various phases, especially the younger children’s grade levels in the FP and the IP. This synergy and teacher collaboration are some of the characteristics of effective schools that are good for bilingual education.

As the children learn to write and read in isiXhosa, they learn to do so in English as well, though to a lesser extent for English than for isiXhosa, their primary language. The level of exposure to English available to them in class enables the children to get familiar with thinking of objects in both isiXhosa and English. This was said to have the effect of helping the children transition from the isiXhosa immersion Foundation Phase to the isiXhosa-predominant

139

Intermediate Phase. At FP learners learned the following subjects: isiXhosa, life skills (LS), math and incremental elementary English.

Teaching at Intermediate Phase (IP)

The teachers expressed the view that there was little difference between Grades 3 (in FP) and 4 (at IP beginning), as the L1 medium continues for at least the two most difficult subjects.

However, the author learned that the subjects increased in number for the IP. They also became deeper, as for instance, life skills breaks into two subjects, life orientation and arts and culture.

Though math and NS&T continue to be learned and taught in isiXhosa –supported with English as a resource language – the majority of subjects still have to be learned in English. The teachers in the teachers’ focus group (TFG) saw the instructional practices of the Intermediate Phase as linking up with those of the Foundation Phase to continue the effect of transitioning the children from total isiXhosa instruction to part isiXhosa and part English. Also, the use of transliterations, and later of actual English words at the Intermediate Phase, as reported earlier, was seen as a kind of a transitional strategy, even though it was not consciously planned with transition in mind. Thus the teachers expressed the view that by the time the learners were through Grade 6, they would be sufficiently knowledgeable in math and science concepts, in both isiXhosa and English, to move easily into the English-only immersion Senior Phase that starts at Grade 7. The following extracts from the TFGI illustrate this perception:

Ndiyaqonda ke ngoku, naxa sinyuka ke ngoku, sisiya phaa kwiSenior Phase, xa zikhona izichazi-magama, benazo neencwadi, notitshala ekhona, eneematerials zakhe, ii-teaching aids zakhe azisebenzisayo, andiqondi ukuba bawufumana ubunzima kakhulu. “

[[I am convinced now that when we go up to the Senior Phase, if dictionaries are available, and they (the children) also have books, and the teacher is there, with her materials, her teaching aids that she uses, I don’t think they will encounter much problem]]

140

Here the MPS’ Teacher M is describing the context as being favorable for the children to do well in their current classes and to be able to transition well to the English-only taught Grades

7, 8 and 9 because all the necessary resources were available. This included not only the teachers and their preparedness, but also teaching aids, as well as the availability of the essential LTMs, namely the books and dictionaries.

The teacher also explained the ways in which the learners were being prepared to transition from one LOLT environment to another in the different phases and grades by referring to the pedagogic practices in the various phases. The following extract contains this illustrating explanation:

Umzekelo: Ndiza kutitsha ngala trayengile iphaya. Ndigqibele uMiss wakwaGrade 3 esithi laa trayengile ngunxantathu. Ngoku xa ndikwaGrade 4 ndithi, “yitrayengile leya, bantwana bam.” . . . Ngeebrakethi ndithi “Triangle” in English. Ngoku umntana ukhul’esaz’uba yitrayengile ngesiXhosa, yitriangle in English. So xa ndise ke ngoku ndikwaSenior Phase, xa sendimtitsha ndithi, “This is a triangle.” It’s not a new information kuye. …. Naxa ndiphaa kwaGrade 6, sendisithi, ‘yitrayengile leya,’ kwiibrakethi zam ndithi ‘triangle’ So, uno-bilingual. Unotrayengile wesiXhosa, unotriangle wesiNgesi. Ngoku kwaGrade 7 ndimyekile u”trayengile”. ndithetha ngetriangle ngoku, emntaneni wam Yitrayengile le, mntan’am. This is a triangle. Yirekhthengile le; This is a rectangle. So, ziyahambelana ke ngoku. Abukho ubunzima obukhoyo

[[An example: I am going to teach about a triangle. At Grade 3 the teacher called the triangle, “unxantathu.” (isiXhosa for “triangle’). Now, at Grade 4 I say, “This is an itrayengile, my children.” . . . In brackets I write the English word “triangle”. Now the child grows up knowing it as “itrayengile” in isiXhosa, and as “triangle” in English. So, at Senior Phase, when I am teaching her/him, I say, “This is a triangle.” It’s not a new information for her/him. . . . Even at Grade 6, as I said “That is an ‘itrayengile,’ and in brackets I say “’triangle.’ So, s/he has (a) bilingual (concept), namely isiXhosa ‘itrayengile’ and English, ‘triangle.’ Now, at Grade 7 I leave ‘itrayengile.’ I now speak of ‘a triangle’, to my child (meaning, my student)]. So, the bilingual concepts now go together. There is no difficulty.]]

The teacher asserts that the method of introducing the math (and science) concepts in isiXhosa at Foundation Phase, as she mentions Grade 3, enables the child to understand the concepts and grow up and move up the grades with a good foundation of conceptual

141

comprehension. For example, s/he will know the triangular shape as “unxantathu”, an isiXhosa term that expresses a meaning like, “a three-point (object),” even if the term was not common in the speech of the rural community. The name for it together with the shape s/he will be looking at makes comprehension and retention of the knowledge and isiXhosa label easy, by Grade 3. At

Grade 4, the practice must include introduction of a transliterated form of the English term, namely “itrayengile,” thereby adding to the child’s vocabulary, but moving it closer to English.

Already, s/he has a bilingual understanding of the concept/shape. At Grade 7 all that is necessary is to emphasize the English form and pronunciation of the triangle. The provincial officials too, felt that the children would be sufficiently knowledgeable in math and science concepts and content, and would have gained enough English knowledge from the part English LOLT for math and NST, as well as from the other subjects that were still learned in English, at IP, that included the effective teaching of English mentioned as a part of the principles of this model.

The practices discussed above concern mainly the learning of content, where math and

NS&T were taught mainly in isiXhosa while English was utilized as a resource language to ensure accessibility of content for the learners. This again emphasizes, in a direct way, the predominant language-as-resource orientation of the program’s implementation: The children’s mother tongue was utilized as a resource for academic conceptual development. The second language, English, was seen as a resource to further enable the accessibility of math and science concepts for the sake of the children.

IsiXhosa L1 and English L2 as Subjects

Besides being a means for content learning as described in the foregoing sections, the two languages, isiXhosa and English were also offered as subjects to be learned and taught. While the MTBBE program organization does not explicitly include an aspect of language development, the fact that these two languages are essential tools in the program has a beneficial

142

effect on them too. First of all, the role they play in the operation of the bilingual education program is obvious. Secondly on their own, they constitute the language area, Language, which is very highly weighted in the curriculum according to education policy. The implication of the two facts is that both languages must be allocated greater time in the school timetable than other subjects. Secondly, they must both be learned and taught very effectively.

One of the major principles of the implementation of the MTBBE program that was repeatedly cited by stakeholders was this requirement that the children had to be taught in such a way as to lead to high literacy and proficiency levels in both languages.

The reason given was that the learners needed to be well grounded in both languages, as they needed both for content and conceptual comprehension as well as for participating in class, for understanding examination questions when the time comes, and for the ability to answer the questions, in all subjects, those taught in isiXhosa and those taught in English. All the stakeholders, at different times and in different ways, asserted that while the academic-linguistic needs were being met by thorough and effective teaching of the languages, the question as to how bilingual the program was, was also addressed in this required pedagogic principle. This principle and the attendant classroom practices of teaching the two languages thoroughly and effectively, were also seen as one way of preparing the learners to transition, when the time comes, from bilingual instruction in Grade 6 to English-only instruction in Grades 7 to 9.

Some L1 and L2 Pedagogic Methods

Since there was only one teacher for both isiXhosa and English at the MPS, the data item

(namely the interview transcript/protocol) containing data from the Teacher L, was given a special scrutiny for the data referring to Teacher L’s teaching strategy. The teacher reported that in order to contribute to the spirit of the bilingual education program of the school, she endeavored to teach a similar lesson in the two languages on the same day in each of her classes,

143

even those not in the Intermediate Phase. This worked well when she had her isiXhosa and

English classroom periods coming back-to back, as she was able to help students transfer to

English what they had just learned in isiXhosa. Her example was that if she taught Izimelabizo

(Pronouns) during the isiXhosa class, she would teach the same topic to the same class during the period for English as a subject.

This could not be observed because of examination time, which disrupted normal class times. But the teacher’s attitude towards the two languages reflected the recourse orientation of the country’s LiEP, and represented an acceptance of the micro-representation of the pluri- language context of South African society. But it gave the impression that at the MPS, the two languages, isiXhosa and English, have equal time in the curriculum and on the teaching schedule

(Time table) of the school

Assessment

Assessment is an important part of implementation of a bilingual education program. At the MPS there were two main types of assessment, informal assessment that took place daily in the classroom as part of a lesson, and written examinations that took place at the end of each quarter/term, and at the end of the year. These two types of assessment take place in the classroom, the former on a day to day basis and the latter at the end of each term and at the end of the year. Monitoring, which is discussed as a separate heading below, was mentioned by the government level participants more as a process of observing outcomes than of administering tests and examinations that lead to the outcomes.

Informal assessment

Class observation visits enabled the author to observed informal assessment activities as they happened during lessons. These consisted of tasks given to students in class during or after every lesson. The teacher sometimes did the informal assessment activities orally by asking

144

students to answer questions or giving them tasks to perform, individually, in small groups, or whole groups. Teacher M at the MPS frequently led her combined Grades 4 and 5 classes in performing certain tasks orally, and then to do written tasks that were already provided in the workbooks. If she needed to go and attend to another class, which had no teacher, as there was a teacher shortage, this was when she would have the children do the written tasks from the workbooks. Later, she would find time to come back to the two IP combined classes and ask the children to come and show her the written tasks they had done while she was attending to another class. It was frequent to see the older classes at the Senior Phase (SP), left alone because they did not have a teacher during a certain period.

Examinations

The types of assessment that the teachers talked frequently about were examinations.

These were quarterly and end-of-the-year MTBBE examination papers that were standardized at district level. Both grades 4 and 5 wrote district-standardized examinations only in the MTBBE implementing schools. In the non-implementing mainstream system, only Grade 6 wrote a centralized/standardized examination paper because this grade is an exit point from the intermediate to the Senior Phase that begins at Grade 7. The examination papers were supposed to be prepared at the district office and sent by the district office to the MPS (and other piloting schools).

However the teachers were complaining that there was lack of consistency at this initial stage. Sometimes the district office failed to send the examination papers. At the time of data collection, the teachers were complaining that math exam papers for both Grades 4 and 5 had not arrived, and they were waiting for a word from the District Office mandating them to prepare their own exam papers instead of waiting for the by-then late district-centralized paper for all implementing schools. In this confusing situation, the resourcefulness of teachers based on their

145

familiarity with setting their own, school-internal examination papers was utilized. The teachers also reported that they had suggested that the province and the district should allow teachers in the implementing schools to take turns in setting central examination papers. This would not only ensure efficiency in this matter, but would also relieve the district advisers of this duty and thus reduce the overload on them. The dedication of the teachers at the MPS and their willingness to add the setting of standardized assessment materials to their own load enhances the resource-orientation feature of this school’s (and others’) teachers as implementers of the bilingual education program.

Monitoring the Program through Outcomes

Assessment also served as one way of monitoring that the data showed what was happening. Quarterly and end-of-year exams are centralized. There is a standard paper from the

District Office for all MTBBE schools each term. The purpose of standardization seems to be to monitor if the program is followed according to how it is designed and taught to teachers. It is also to observe the outcomes for math and NS and T, compared with those of non-implementing schools, and with past non-bilingual Grades 4 and 5 in the implementing schools, of which the

MPS is one. To a probe question as to why there were centralized exams for Grades 4 and 5 every quarter and at the end of the year, the MPS principal said, in response, “I should think they want to check the standard. They want also to check if people are doing the same thing”

Concerning research for monitoring on outcomes for MTBBE learners, Thandeka referred to another type of formative assessment that already exists in the education system for

Grades 1- 6, the Annual National Assessment (ANA). Taking place at the beginning of the last term, October to December, the ANA was introduced in 2011 to monitor performance and to report feedback to parents and to the school so steps can be taken to enhance learner performance

146

and close achievement gaps in the FP and IP grade levels (sadtu.com). Thandeka reported that they depend on the ANA, saying,

Sisaphelela kulaa nt’ oba, sisoloko siyigadil’ int’ oba zithin’ ii-results za:’ bantwana xa bebhala. Sizi-compare-ishe nezinye, mhlawumbi a neighboring district esaqhuba yona ngala ndlel’ indala . . .xa bebhal’ ii-ANAs u’ba baqhuba njani na. And siyala ukuba babhale ii-ANAs ngesiNgesi. Ayi-test-i bona once ize ngesiNgesi. Ayi-test-i bona once ize ngesiNgesi.

[[All we are still doing is to watch these children’s results/outcomes when they write [exams]. We compare them with others, perhaps a neighboring district that is still continuing (educating IP) in the old way. [We monitor] their ANA exams’ outcomes to evaluate their progress. And we prevent that they be made to write their ANA examinations in English. Once it comes in English, it has no validity for them]].

In this extract, Thandeka refers to the fact that as a new program, the MTBBE does not yet have its own system of evaluation of its effectiveness. What is also noticeable is the maintenance of assessment validity through the use of the same language as for learning and teaching. This helps in ensuring that the outcomes are also valid and evaluation is fair.

Perceived Effectiveness of the Program

The purpose of the theme on effectiveness of the program is to describe the perceptions of the participants about the program’s effectiveness, taking into consideration the limited time that it had been operating by the time of data collection. The theme includes stakeholder reports of the characteristics that make the MPS a potentially effective bilingual education school. The characteristics include the MPS’ reported good administration, good teaching of the concern causing intermediate phase, one of the best reliable schools in the district for introducing new programs, and features of effectiveness that were identified by the stakeholders, including improved end of the year students results.

147

The MPS as a Potentially Effective Bilingual Education School

Stakeholders expressed the view that the MPS had good administration. It also was reported by both the district officials who participated in the study as one of the most reliable schools for the intermediate phase. Supporting this expression of reliance on the school, was the teachers’ narration of, among other things, a strategy they used to ensure a successful learning and teaching environment for the IP, especially Grade 4. To reduce the academic and linguistic overload that the children experienced after Grade 3, the MPS’ teachers reported that they made an agreement among themselves that the foundation phase teachers must make sure that by the end of Grade 3 the children must have acquired and mastered the skill to write cursively, as the teaching and learning of this skill takes much time and effort, and only adds to the load the children experience at Grade 4.

It is evident from the account on this kind of school wide collaboration that there is synergy in the teaching of the various phases especially the younger children’s grade levels in the FP and the IP. The school’s strength was attested to also by the principal who asserted that their school had been the first to be identified for implementation of the bilingual education program because the district always relied on the school for trying any new programs in the circuit and district. He said,

“We have many programs. And also the District, whenever they have got something, they throw it ku-MPS. . . . Let alone that [we are short staffed]. But they know that if they want to test something, they know which school [to take it to].” [[… to MPS]].

This quote tells us the same thing as has been expressed by the district officials about the

MPS’ being an efficient and thus reliable school. As a result of the good qualities of the school, all new programs are taken to the school first. The principal’s view therefore supports the expressed government officials’ view about the school. It makes us see why the school easily

148

accepted the implementation of the previously unknown MTBBE program. But the complain of all school level stakeholders has been about the shortage of teachers. The principal does not fail to juxtapose the complaint with the report that the all new programs are given to the school first for trials and for implementation. The MTBBE was introduced to the school for the same reasons.

Reported Signs of Potential Effectiveness

Participants reported the following signs that they noted about the program’s potential effectiveness: a consideration of students’ examination outcomes, students’ classroom participation, and successful use of language of learning and teaching as language of assessment as well. There was a good report for end of the year examination outcomes for Grade 4.

Stakeholders reported that on comparing the Grade 4 results at the end of 2012 with those of

2011, and with those of non-participating schools, they were able to see a difference and improvement in students’ performance. Stakeholders reported that they had seen a slight improvement overall, but not a highly significant difference between MTBBE and non-MTBBE learners’ performance in math. Stakeholders also expressed the view that these were the first results, and more assessments were needed to be completely confident that the improvement was due to the introduction of the mother tongue-based bilingual education program.

Comprehension Goal Fulfilled

From stakeholders’ perspective, the program’s goal of improving learners’ comprehension of math and NS&T concepts was fulfilled. When asked if they were seeing any difference made by the bilingual education project after having taught in the program for almost two years, the teachers responded as follows:

Ukhona umahluko esiwubonayo, kuba ngoku, mna xa ndibajongile, ingathi bayeva kakhulu, naxa ke usekhona umceli-mngeni malunga nesigama esisisebenzisayo. Kodwa kona ukusa phaya emntaneni, ukuba i-information uyisa ngesiXhosa,

149

ulwazi ulusa ngesiXhosa, bayeva ngoku abantwana. Kwenza umahluko omkhulu, mna kwezi ndiziqondayo ke, imathematics.

[[There is a difference we see, because now, when I look at them, I think they understand much, although there is still a challenge with the vocabulary we use. Nonetheless, when we give the children information in isiXhosa, the children understand now. It makes a big difference, in the one [subject] I understand, mathematics.]]

According to this extract, there is a considerable difference in learners’ comprehension of mathematics. Now that the main medium of communication to the children is isiXhosa, the children grasp the information much easier.

The teachers further expressed the view that, based on their observation of the fifth graders who were in their second year in the program in 2013, the year of data collection for the current study, the program was effective. The following extract reflects the teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the program:

Ndiza wuthethela ke ngoku, isikolo sethu. Kwesi sethu isikolo bafika berayithi. Kuba kwaphaa kwaGrade 4, njengba laa mathematics ititshwa kwagrade 3 ngesiXhosa, abukho ubunzima kakhulu phaa kwagrade 4, kuba bahamba ngesaa siXhosa sabo okokoko. So, xa besebefika kwaGrade 5, hayi ngabantwana abazihambelayo, xa sendithetha ngesi sethu isikolo.”

[[I am going to speak about our school now. In our school they [Grade 5 pupils] are quite good when they arrive [from Grade 4]. That is because even at Grade 4 they do not have difficulty since math has been taught in isiXhosa even at Grade 3. So, by the time they get to Grade 5, no, they are just moving forward, speaking about our school, in particular]]

This answer reveals the perceived positive effect of the late exit model since isiXhosa instruction begins at Foundation Phase. By the time learners are in Grade 5 they have been in the

L1 instruction model for a long enough time, so that they do not experience too much difficulty in math. The teacher quickly followed up this good report about the effectiveness of the program with the following statement complaining about the shortage of teachers:

Kona kona, benditshilo nasekuqaleni ndathi, uba ibingeyiyo int’ oba sinomthwalo, thina ngesikude kwesi sikolo sethu. I-human resource ayikho esikolweni sethu.”

150

[[Surely, as I said earlier, if it were not because of the overload we have, we would be far in this our school. There is shortage of human resource in our school”

The complaint about the shortage of teachers is that it causes work overload. With respect to the school, the overload lessens the teachers’ effectiveness even though they are good. The effectiveness of the MTBBE could be affected because of the overload.

Benefits of the Program for the Province and for the School

Stakeholders pointed to a number of benefits that they saw accruing from the implementation of the bilingual education program for the Province of the Eastern Cape, the BD-

1 District, and for the Mzamo Primary School. With respect to the Province the perceived benefits were human resource advantage, the economic benefits, and socio-political benefit

Human Resource Advantage

The advantage that was envisaged with the establishment of the LiEP was that Nokhanyo would work with the employees of the department who were already in the system, and who would serve in an auxiliary capacity. In this way, it was hoped, the question of staff provisioning would be addressed to a considerable extent. The DO2, in his explanation of why he thought that the ECDoE was preparing to expand the MTBBE program to other schools mentioned the secondment of a subject adviser from one district to the LiEP Unit to assist the two officials with

LiEP work relating to the MTBBE. However, for some reason, Nokhanyo and Thandeka, like the

DO2 at district level, and teachers at school level, complained of shortage of human resources.

The Economic Benefit

The analysis of the interview with the second provincial official, the only one who had knowledge of all the history of, and provincial circumstances around, the establishment of the mother tongue based bilingual education, revealed this benefit. The economic benefit relates to the fact that the establishment of the LiEP Unit enabled the province’s Department of Education

151

to create a post for Nokhanyo. The Department wanted to employ Nokhanyo full time, instead of inviting her from time to time to come and help with advocacy as she was skilled in answering difficult questions about the intended bilingual education program. This is what Thandeka said in this regard:

Kanti . . . uSungula, the MEC, uvile ngezi road shows. . . . Wathi, . . . xa simenzel’ i-report [yokuba] , . . lo mntu obesenza le advocacy si-specialist sale field. . . . Nathi ngoku simbonile. . . . [Futhi] . . . asiyiboni thina le nt’ uba sawukwazi njan’ ukuyifunqula ngaphandle kwakhe. . . . Wath’ uSungula, hayi mna ndiza wum- recruit-a, . . . uNokhanyo . . . Ukwenzel’ ukuba i-Department kungafuneki iqesh’ abantu specially for this. Nokubhatala. Iza wubhatala yena. Ngoku kufunek’ ibhatale nabantw’ abaza wube besebenza naye, ebasebenzisa. Kanti xa inokum- second-a iza wumbek’ apha, imnik’ i-salary. Asebenzise aba bantu balapha [kwiDepartment], . . . abasebenza nez’kolo, atreyine bona.

[[It so happened that . . . Mr. Sungula, the MEC [of Education] heard about the roadshows.in those roadshows. And, . . . when we gave him the report [that] . . . the person who was doing the advocacy is a specialist of the field. . . . And we also have experience of her [expertise]. . . . [And] . . . we don not see how we can carry out this work without her. He, Sungula, said as for me I am going to recruit her, . . . Nokhanyo . . . so that the Department may not need hire people specially for this [except her]. And making payments. {At the moment} it [the Department] will have to pay her as well as the people she will be working with. And yet if it seconds her it will bring her here, and give her a salary. And she will work with the people who are here [in the Department], who [already] work with the schools, and train them. ]]

This extract conveys the information that when Mr. Sungula (pseudonym) heard about

Nokhanyo’s advocacy skills, he was impressed by them. Moreover, Thandeka and other departmental workers who had been working with Nokhanyo gave the MEC the report that

Nokhanyo was a specialist of the bilingual education field. They reported that they could not handle advocacy and all the difficult questions they encountered without Nokhanyo. Mr. Sungula decided to recruit Nokhanyo to be a salaried worker of the Department, instead of having to hire her as and the people she would come with from time to time. Instead, the Department would have her as the only new employee for the bilingual education program. She would then train

152

already existing employees of the Department and work with them. These would be the curriculum specialists and subject advisors who were already working with schools as their regular employment.

Socio-political Benefit

The Eastern Cape Province is recognized as being the first out nine provinces in the country to comply with the requirements of the National Language Framework of 2003 by establishing the first LiEP Unit, and by piloting the first large-scale bilingual education program involving an African language of the country. From the point of view of the BD-1, it has the distinction of being the first district to allow and enable the implementation of the country’s

LiEP. Speaking of the district’s profound commitment to the implementation of the MTBBE program, Thandeka, the provincial official who led the advocacy at the beginning, reported that the BD-1 gave the advocacy officials and others working with them a warm welcome. This was seen, inter alia, in the success of the big advocacy meeting that was well attended by all interest groups. In addition to this, is the DO2’s highlighting the significance and effect of traditional chiefs as leaders, the importance of the Great Place as a venue, as well as the presence of the highest traditional leader in the district, Chief Ngangomhlaba Matanzima in the meeting.

Parents-School Relationship Enhanced

At school level, the bilingual program was reported to have enhanced the role of parents as part of the school community. Although this finding is not robust in the sense that its theme occurs only in data from two participants, it is an important fact to note about the effect of the

MTBBE program implementation. The SPS’ principal’s welcoming of the bilingual education program led to his awareness that school policies came from the government in English only, even though most of the parents in the rural areas do not have enough English proficiency. The result of this awareness was that the SPS’ principal decided to extend the idea of the MTBBE by

153

translating his school’s policy document. He reported that the participation of the parents in school matters improved, and more parents attended school meetings.

During the PFG interview parents expressed happiness with the MTBBE program, explaining that it helped them have better comprehension of their children’s homework than before. That improved their ability to help the children with homework, as requested by the teachers. Thus the parents expressed their understanding of, and satisfaction with, the MTBBE which made them want to collaborate with the school as the use of isiXhosa as the predominant

LOLT enabled them, among other things, to understand their children’s homework and be able to help them as teachers needed this support from the parents.

All stakeholders saw the valuable role of parental support by helping with homework and other matters for the school and the children. Although the parents are the local community in which the school operates, at the same time they represent the wider isiXhosa-speaking society with some of its language and education ideologies and discourses. These are bound to have an impact on the implementation of the school’s bilingual program.

Benefit for IsiXhosa: Status and Corpus Planning

Stakeholders reported that the program’s benefit for isiXhosa was its educational domain gain in math and NS&T at Grades 4 to 6, as it was the predominant vehicle for the children’s education at IP. This gain was an extension of the educational function of the language because the language was already the LOLT at the Foundation Phase (FP). Thandeka expressed this view as she was trying to explain that the program did not have an expressed aim to directly develop isiXhosa. IsiXhosa was a necessary tool for reaching the children educationally and leading to their academic improvement. Another section of the ECDoE was responsible for the development and other issues pertaining to isiXhosa at school. She said, among other things,

154

Sawutsho si-gain-e ke nesiya siseklasin’ is’Xhosa. Sawutsho si-gain-e naso esaa s’Xhosa ngoba ngokw’ abantwana bayaqina elwazini lwabo lwes’Xhosa.

[[Then the isiXhosa language taught in its own classroom, will gain [something], because the children are also growing stronger in their isiXhosa knowledge.]]

Thus, isiXhosa knowledge and further development will result from its being taught effectively for reaching the content subjects comprehension goal. To nurture this vehicle for the children’s academic advantage, the program had a stake in making sure the language was being taught efficiently and to high standard, hence its third principle mandating a language teacher to teach both the L1 and L2 effectively for their instrumental purpose to the program. Also by promoting isiXhosa as a major LOLT, and creating more isiXhosa math and science terminology, as well as learning and teaching materials for the practice of bilingual education, the program benefits the isiXhosa language in terms of both status and corpus planning. Both are very important as they represent a further development of isiXhosa as one of the official African languages whose development and promotion is mandated by the country’s constitution.

Benefit for IsiXhosa: Maintenance and Promotion

Stakeholders stated the indirect benefit for language maintenance and promotion, for the isiXhosa mother tongue of the learners. The following data extract fro the TFG interview reflects this:

So, ngoku aph’ esiXhoseni ubon’ukuba xa ufuna igam’ elithile ukh’uqal’ ucinge. So, ubilingual ke ngoku uyasibuyisela kwimveli yethu.”

[[So now, when it comes to isiXhosa, you have to think [hard] before you come up with a relevant term. Therefore, the bilingual program is bringing us back to our (linguistic) roots).]]

This data extract’s significance is that it not only talks to what happens in the classroom, but also to the still widespread skepticism towards, and consequent neglect of, isiXhosa in education. It represents a step in the direction of change from skepticism, at least at the MPS. This therefore

155

shows to what extent the MPS teachers have accepted the mother tongue-based bilingual education program.

Benefits for the Children

The most important benefit reported, and also seen in classroom observations, concerning

Grades 4 and 5 learners (by 2013), was enhanced comprehension and classroom participation, because of being taught, and expected to ask and reply to questions, in their L1, without first struggling with English and being afraid of making mistakes. Stakeholders expressed the view that another benefit for the children was the fact that the LOLT also became the language of assessment and examination. Before the MTBBE, code switching in class was dominant, whereas only English was used for examinations and assessments.

Another benefit for the children was the already reported improved involvement of parents with the children’s education, both in assisting with homework and in participating in the school activities whenever necessary, now that isiXhosa is part of the official language practice of the school. Although occurring only in one data item, the benefit to the children pointed out by the DO2 is also important. This was that the translation and ultimate production of an isiXhosa version of the workbook would give the bilingual education learners the advantage of having two books, an isiXhosa version and an English one.

Contextual Factors Affecting the Program

This section addresses the question of what factors the stakeholders directly or indirectly identified as having an encouraging or a challenging impact on the successful implementation of the bilingual education program of the MPS.

Encouraging Factors

Encouraging factors are those that lead or contribute to effective implementation and practices, resulting in the realization of the goals and the fulfillment of the purpose of the

156

program. Stakeholders identified the following factors: The fact that the provincial government had initiated the program reassured them that it would always be supported. The author heard and saw definite supportive planning and actions throughout each step of the entire advocacy and implementation. Although the Auxiliary services, were not specifically for the bilingual program, they served as a support structure and a motivator for children and for any parents that might be affected socio-economically. The DO2 reports that in each of the 11 circuits of the BD1 district there is an education support section, which is responsible for services like “school nutrition, scholar transport, vulnerable learners, HIV and AIDS-related, child-headed families, and how to assist those learners who are heading their families, [and] anything that relate[s] to . . . abused children” These are important contextual aspects for ensuring a minimization of any factors that might affect student school attendance and learning, and thereby affect the effectiveness of the

MTBBE program.

Advantage of Existing Evaluation System: ANA Exams

As a new innovation in the education system, the MTBBE program did not yet have its own way of evaluating its effectiveness. However, in order not to treat the learners as a separate group from the rest of their peers in the non-piloting districts, it was an opportune situation to adjust linguistically an already existing evaluation system, the Annual National Assessment of the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The adjustment of the language of assessment through translation from English to isiXhosa, by the LiEP Unit, rendered the assessment valid for the bilingually taught IP grades of the MPS.

Teacher Characteristics

Certain teacher characteristics were found to be assets for the newly introduced bilingual education program. They include: teacher disposition, collaboration, and love for the children

157

Teacher disposition

One of the ways in which this attribute was evident was the teachers’ expression of love for teaching. They all said that what they had enjoyed throughout their careers was that each loved teaching. Another feature of a good teacher disposition was that they talked about the students as “my children.” When talking about the children they teach ,each teacher I interviewed constantly referred to them as “abantwana bam” which means “my children.” This is a commonly used isiXhosa-culture-based endearing expression isiXhosa teachers use to refer to their students. It expresses love, warmth and compassion for the students.

Also, the teachers reported that they were happy when students showed understanding of what they were taught. Lack of understanding by students is the reason all participants stated for engaging in code switching. One participant even distinguished between code switching and code mixing, where code switching was when a teacher explained a part of a lesson in the children’s primary language. This was acceptable. But code mixing, speaking isiXhosa and

English together for a long time, was not acceptable according to the participant . But this method of meeting students halfway was unfair to students in that the assessment was only in

English, as determined by education policy. One reason MTBBE was accepted was that it was understood as a means of correcting this.

Another marker of teacher disposition was the teachers’ willingness to spend extra time in having classes with learners who they sometimes missed because they had to teach too many classes. The MPS second-in-command reported that she spent extra hours to teach students, as part of addressing teacher shortage. Other teachers do this by taking time from some subjects to focus on the most highly weighted subjects, especially math and natural science and technology

(NST). The last characteristic that indicated teacher quality among the MPS’ teachers was the hope they expressed that the MTBBE would continue. They did not want it reversed. Two

158

reasons for this were that the students understand and participate better in class, and perform well in assessments. Also it makes it easier for the teachers to prepare when they prepare in isiXhosa, even though they do not discard English.

Collaboration

This characteristic of the teachers at the MPS was revealed by the ways they said they adopted to meet the challenge of teacher shortage at the school, and to make sure that the bilingual program was working. They called these strategies multi-grading and multi-phasing.

The term, used by the teachers as well as the district, means teachers take on classes across phases and beyond their own grades to close gaps caused by the shortage of teachers. For example, even a Grade R teacher and a school clerk joined other teachers in offering their services to teach any of the grades in all three phases to close gaps caused by teacher shortage, and minimize each other’s overload.

Another way in which the teachers said they collaborated well among themselves was by sharing new skills and insights. If for example, a teacher attended a government workshop on new math teaching methods, s/he shared that insight with all teachers in other grades as well.

Foundation teachers who had been the first to be trained for teaching math in isiXhosa up to

Grade 3 were very helpful to the teachers involved in the newly piloted bilingual education program.

Translation skills were also shared among bilingual education implementing teachers.

The third way in which they showed collaboration with each other was cooperation in addressing learners’ problems. Teachers reported their reliance on Teacher M in case of learner problems, whether personal and in need of counseling, or academic and in need of remedial teaching. She intervened to the other teachers’ satisfaction.

159

The MPS’ teachers made an agreement among themselves that the Foundation Phase teachers must make sure that by the end of Grade 3 the children would have acquired and mastered the skill to write cursively, as the teaching and learning of this skill takes much time and effort and only adds to the load the children experience at Grade 4. It is evident from the account on this kind of school-wide collaboration that there is synergy in the teaching of the various phases especially for the younger children’s in the FP and the IP grade levels. This synergy and teacher collaboration are some of the characteristics of effective schools that are good for bilingual education.

Adequate certification as good background

Since the mother tongue-based bilingual education that involves isiXhosa and English is the first of its kind in the Eastern Cape, and indeed in the country, the educational qualifications, professional experiences, and development that teachers already have must be considered in relation to how they help teachers engage with the bilingual education program. All the stakeholders interviewed reported very good educational backgrounds as well as professional experiences as teachers, teacher trainers, trainers of trainers, district managers, principals, and subject adviser, all long time experts in their fields. These qualifications and experiences enabled them to easily adapt to the MTBBE as they had all the qualities of good educators. The professional development provided in workshops was additional to the already attained qualifications and experiences. It was therefore easy for them to benefit from the workshops that provided in-service training in bilingual education principles and pedagogic practices, as well as in translation and terminology creation methods.

Challenging Situations

In spite of the several encouraging factors for the effectiveness, the continuation and possible extension of the bilingual program, there are a few factors that the stakeholders reported

160

as challenges. The most serious threatening factor was shortage of human resources at all levels.

The stakeholders also reported some challenges in connection with material development .

Human Resource Shortage

After efforts to meet the qualifications gap for the provincial official and to get Nokhanyo to drive the implementation of the MTBBE had been made, the other major challenge, which was similar to that reported at the other levels, was shortage of staff for the LiEP Unit’s various functions, the main ones being support for the implementing schools, and planning the extension of the program to other schools. Data from Nokhanyo and Thandeka, the two provincial officials, supported by data from the DO-2, show that they had to improvise a lot. The strategy to include translation guidance in the bilingual teacher education workshops they conducted is one demonstration of their need to improvise.

The DO2 told a similar story regarding human resource shortage. He works as subject advisor for science and technology in many circuits and additionally as the SA for the MTBBE implementing schools that include the MPS. He reported that he was responsible for all eleven circuits including piloting and non-piloting schools as a subject adviser for science, in that very wide district.

The most serious challenge reported in every interview at the school, including those with the TFG, individuals, school administrators’ and parents’ focus groups, was always the shortage of teachers. With regard to teacher shortage, all the teachers as well as the principal at the MPS complained about being too few and consequently being spread too thinly across the three phases and the nine grades of learners. The main cause of this is that teacher staffing depends on the school population. Student numbers had declined at MPS. The number of teachers had consequently been reduced to only four teachers, namely, the principal, the two teachers who teach the bilingual program subjects and the language teacher who is responsible for both

161

isiXhosa and English. All the teachers are involved in what are commonly termed, multi-phasing and multi-grading, in that environment. This means teaching across phases and in all grades, as everyone has to assist with whatever knowledge they have wherever there is a gap. Although it was explained that Grade R is not officially counted in the total roll of a school by the department of education, the grade R teacher also helps with some classes in the Foundation

Phase, and in the intermediate and Senior Phases. There is also a school administrative worker, who assists with teaching in the Senior Phase, Grades 7 – 9. So, the teachers’ and parents’ main complaint is that understaffing can sabotage the success of the program.

From what the author observed during informal talks with the teachers, however, it is evident that there is very high level collaboration among all the teachers, including the principal, as well as the office administrator who doubles as a teacher to relieve some of the teachers from

Senior Phase classes so they can focus more on the Intermediate Phase. This again comes from the strength of cultural values of isiXhosa-speaking people serving one another and pulling together, without expectation or remuneration, when the situation demands it.

Challenges with Materials Development

Teacher understandings and spontaneous use of language sometimes differed from the ideological views of the main drivers of the program about isiXhosa scientific terminology. The cases of two vocabulary items are presented here to illustrate the discussion as well as the ideological intersection. One case concerns the use of isiXhosa names for numbers; the second one is about the use of the isiXhosa word, “ukubala” which means both to count and to calculate.

With regards to the isiXhosa names for numbers, Nokhanyo and Thandeka strongly felt that the teachers should not use isiXhosa names to talk about the numbers when doing math with the children. They asserted that the use of isiXhosa names for numbers constituted a language purist tendency. However, the following extract from the teachers’ focus group presents a

162

different view. The extract is part of an answer to an interview question inquiring if the teachers thought the program was successful thus far:

Itsh’ukuthi ke ngoku, njengba bekhula [abantwana] nayo, besaz’ u’ba kwi-natural science sisebenzisa esi siXhosa, nakwimaths siyakwaz’ ukubala, amanani siwachaza ngokuba ngamashumi athe, ngamashumi amane, instead of u-forty, uyayibona? So baza kuzi-understand-a ke ngoku . . . nezinye, ngokuya isenyuk’ isenyuka baye beyi-understand-a more, ... ngalaa ‘base’ yokuba babeyifumene kwasekuqaleni ezantsi ngesaa siXhosa sabo.

[[This means that, now, as they [the children] grow with it, knowing that in natural science we use isiXhosa, and in math we know how to calculate, we describe numbers in terms of ‘tens which are…, [e.g.] tens which are four’ instead of “forty,” you see? So, they will understand, in others as well, as it [i.e., the program] goes up and up, they will understand [the subject areas] more, in that base which they experienced from the beginning in the lower classes in the isiXhosa language.]]

In this extract, the teacher feels that it is part of their L1 based numerical knowledge for the learners to know how to say the names of numbers in isiXhosa as well, not only in English.

In isiXhosa ten is “ishumi”(a ten). The number, twenty is “amashumi amabini” (“tens which are two” or in proper English, “two tens). ” The number, thirty is “amashumi amathathu”, which means “three tens,” and so on. But it is quite common also to alternate between isiXhosa and

English names of numbers in isiXhosa speech. In the above extract the teacher praises the fact that the teaching of math in isiXhosa will help the kids know isiXhosa names of numbers as well.

A child will know that the English concept, “forty”, is “amashumi amane” (tens that are four / four tens). It sounds like more of an ideology than reality to try and make people use or not use certain vocabulary items contrary to their day-to-day use and knowledge of a particular language’s aspect.

With regards to the case of “ukubala” for both count and calculate, Thandeka and

Nokhanyo expressed the view that the children would never be able to distinguish between the two mathematical concepts, count and calculate, if the term “ukubala” is used for both concepts.

163

However, in practical daily life, isiXhosa-speaking people use “ukubala” for both the concepts,

“to count” and “to calculate.” They understand which meaning is being used at a moment of use, depending on the context. This fact was triangulated in the classroom observation of the SPS math teacher who used the term, –bala, “count/calculate” in her math revision class with Grades

4 and 5, with no visible instance of the children being confused. They understood her all the time. Here again is a contradiction between the ideology of the program initiators and the de facto language planning and use of the teachers and children at school level.

Conclusion

These findings therefore show that the stakeholders understand the program to be bilingual because two subjects are taught in isiXhosa, with the supportive use of English, and because the remaining subjects are taught in English. The provincial office understands it to be a strong bilingual education because it is based on the learners’ own primary language instead of being two second languages, the dimensions of which could even be that of a foreign language to them. The program is also understood by most stakeholders to be a boost for the status of isiXhosa as the learners’ L1 and thus the carrier of their culture and identity. Both the teachers and the parents mentioned this emphatically. They also understand the goals of the MTBBE, which all stated as being an intervention to improve educational accessibility, leading to improved academic performance by the learners, which should also have impact at matric level for them. This is because they will move from grade to grade with better comprehension of, and insight into, math and science concepts, because they were able to focus on learning just the concepts and not also the language of learning and teaching.

164

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

Introduction

The problem the study sought to address is the limited understanding of bilingual education and its practices in South Africa between African languages and English despite its need as an important way to address academic underachievement and high dropout rates on the part of African language speaking learners. Specifically the study looked at bilingual education between isiXhosa and English, affecting many rural and semi-rural isiXhosa speaking learners educationally. The purpose of the study was to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions of a bilingual education program in one school in one district in the predominantly isiXhosa speaking

Province of the Eastern Cape in South Africa. The research questions that guided the study were the following:

1. What are the perceptions and perspectives of the teachers, parents, school administrators and district and provincial government officials, associated with the Mzamo Primary School (the MPS), about the bilingual education program’s initiation, implementation and practices?

2. What are the stakeholders’ perceptions about the effectiveness and possibility of continuity of the program?

Data were collected by means of individual and focus group interviews, as well as classroom observations. Employing aspects of language policy and planning (LPP) as theoretical framework, data were analyzed using the thematic analysis method (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This chapter will interpret the findings reported in Chapter 4 and discuss how the findings provide answers for the research questions.

Initiation of the MTBBE Program

One way in which the study’s first question is answered by the findings is by the revelation of how the various levels of the Eastern Cape LPP situation interacted and intersected

165

as steps were taken and decisions made that ultimately led to the implementation of the program in the Mzamo Primary School (MPS). The Eastern Cape LPP situation included connections to the upper national level and also to the lowest level at the local school, the MPS. Such a set of multiple-layer interactional and intersectional activities is referred to as the LPP metaphoric onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). The various layers are likened to the onion’s peels. The outer peels are the upper layers of the LPP situation. The lower levels of the LPP situation are likened to the onion’s inner peels, up to the innermost peel, the lowest level or layer of the LPP situation. In the study’s context this is usually the local school.

The teachers are at this core, innermost layer of the onion where the policy decisions made at the upper layers or outer peels are carried out (de Jong, 2009).

The identifiable interactive layers in relation to the initiation up to the establishment of the MTBBE program at the MPS, were the following: the national level that gave us the language policy and the language in education policy (LiEP), as well as the National Language

Framework of 2003 (Beukes, 2008). The National Language Framework gave guidance as to how to implement the multi-lingual language policy of the country. The next highest level was the level of the provincial Department of Education. In terms of authoritative hierarchy the next level was the district followed by the innermost peels, the grassroots level the NGO, and then the school level as the lowest layer in the interactive LPP hierarchy related to the MTBBE at the

Mzamo Primary School. The findings as reported by the stakeholders also show that the various

LPP layers intersected each other’ s path or level in interchanging bottom-up and top-down relationships (cf Shohamy, 2006).

In terms of the multi-layer language policy and planning situation related to the establishment of the MTBBE program then, we see the first intersection between a first and

166

second level onion peels, the national and the provincial layers respectively. We see this when the provincial layer, in the persons of various MECs of the Eastern Cape Department of

Education (ECDoE), begins to discuss seriously about ways of teaching the Province’s children in their L1 in addition to English as favored by national mainstream education policy for immersion at the earliest level of schooling.

The provincial layer, working within the national language framework, started moving even by just discussing the matter, while the national layer was still inactive with regards to the practical carrying out of the national language policy’s resource oriented provisions.

While the provincial second highest level layer or second outer peel of the LPP onion was still discussing and thinking, a grassroots level entity exercised its agency and took a bottom-up action by seeking to implement, and actually implementing, bilingual education in a school in the Eastern Cape, the Plasini School. This inner peel of the metaphoric LPP onion, which crossed and intersected the paths of both the national and the provincial outer peels was the trust-funded NGO that introduced the bilingual education project that is called the ABLE

Project in the current study. The grassroots level layer’s bottom-up action moved the second outer peel of the onion, the provincial LPP layer, to action beyond discussions. Thus the Eastern

Cape Province overtook the highest level layer of the LPP onion, the national level in beginning to find ways of prying open spaces for the implementation of the LiEP through bilingual education. This it did at a time when the middle class section of the isiXhosa society (and by extension the African language speaking society) was reported to be skeptical and rejecting any mother tongue related kind of education (e.g. De Klerk, 2002). The society is another LPP layer whose attitude may have had at least an indirect influence on the national government’s dragging

167

its feet in the matter of implementing the favorable language in education policy of the country for so long after the LiEP was passed, about seventeen years in 2013.

A top-down approach at provincial LPP level characterized the mandate given to

Thandeka to seek ways of introducing an ABLE type of project to other schools in the Province.

This is one of the several examples of the top-down characteristic of language policy and planning, and the assumption of sometimes unquestioned compliance to implement the top-down policy (Shohamy, 2006). Within the outer layer of the LPP onion, the Province, the LPP decisions were top-down, and the officials at this level did not have a choice but to comply. In connection with officials who must obey their authorities at the level of the outer peel, which is the upper layer of the LPP onion, we can identify a personal level of LPP. In Thandeka’s case, her decision to take steps to learn about bilingual education was not so much of an intersection as a means of complying. It can be described as a personal level exercise of agency of taking responsibility for self-development so as to be able to comply with a top down mandate, namely to monitor a bilingual program, and later to initiate implementation in more schools in the

Province.

Furthermore, Thandeka’s emphatic expression of her not being ready by the time of the

ECDoE’s decision for further implementation of bilingual education illustrates the improvisation and dynamism powers that are expected of teachers, and, in this case, teacher development and teacher education workers as implementers of top down policies. Even the teachers’ acceptance of the responsibility to do translations as a form of learning and teaching materials development for the carrying out of the program can be interpreted as unquestioning acceptance of a provincial top-down decision.

168

The BD-1 district level layer enacted a bottom-up intersectional response to the top-down decision of the ECDoE to implement in only two schools in each of the selected districts. The then District Director took some policy appropriation actions that cut across the provincial layer’s decision on a limited number of schools and increased the district’s number of schools to implement the bilingual education program. The result of that district level intersection is the present MTBBE program of the MPS and 72 other implementing schools in the BD-1 District.

The significance of the Plasini School’s ABLE Project was that it represented grass root

LPP activity, an inner LPP onion’s layer that took initiative to implement bilingual education.

Although the Able Project and the Plasini School ceased to operate, the project had moved the provincial outer layer to actions that are still continuing today. The taking of initiative at local level was as urgent a need as those needs that led to the establishment of good bilingual education programs in the U.S. from grassroots levels. Two of those, which can be studied for their examples, are the Coral Way Bilingual K-8 School in Dade County, Miami, Florida (Nieto,

2009), and the Oyster Bilingual School, Washington D.C. (Freeman, 1998).

Language As a Resource Orientation

Again, in relation to the first question, the results reveal that all the stakeholders associated with the mother tongue based bilingual education of the Mzamo Primary School

(MPS) regarded language as a resource. The language-as-resource-orientation (Ruiz, 1984) is manifest in various aspects of the program. The aspects in which the resource orientation is evident include the MTBBE as an educational reform to meet learners’ need, translanguaging as classroom practice, structured use of L1 and L2 in assessment, status equalization of L1 and L2, and understanding of the program’s bilingualness.

169

The MTBBE as Educational Reform Meeting an Educational Need

In the statement of the rationale and purpose for the MTBBE program at the school the teachers and other stakeholders pointed out that there was a need for the still young Grade 4 learners to receive instruction in both the mother tongue in which they were learning at

Foundation Phase (FP), and English, the new LOLT of the Intermediate Phase (IP). They had just exited Grade three of the Foundation Phase where all subjects were taught in the L1. The mainstream education policy had created a language-as-problem situation where the L1 was dropped too early in the children’s development, and the children suddenly introduced to

English-only instruction, a language they were still learning. Moreover, the academic load was heavier as the subjects increased in number and in depth, with undesirable results, namely high rates of failure and dropout from school from this grade onwards. Too early and too much

English immersion became a problem. The MTBBE program was perceived as an intervention to solve this problem, as it opened space for the continued L1 learning and teaching of at least the two most difficult and highly rated subjects, math and science to promote accessibility and improve children’s academic achievement.

While learning and teaching of math and science and technology in the isiXhosa L1 was an essential necessity, it was also important not to exclude English in the classroom. The

MTBBE program’s strategy was to use English, the L2, to enhance the children’s comprehension and to keep a fair connection with the English content to which they would exit once they had gained a good grasp of the concepts at Grades 4, 5, and 6 in their L1. In this way both languages were treated as a resource for ensuring educational access for, and improving academic achievement on the part of, the children. Moreover, the teaching of the two content subjects in the children’s L1, and the recommended support with English for further comprehension

170

supports the principle of delivering comprehensible input when teaching learners who are second language learners of English (Krashen, 1985).

The treatment of the children’s linguistic repertoire as a resource, and the goal to develop it further for academic success in science and math learning was seen as an important reform to the education of the Eastern Cape’s Grades 4, 5 and 6 learners. Reforms in education effected by including indigenous languages as languages of learning and teaching (LOLT) have been documented in other contexts that are similar to South Africa where a second language dominates in many spheres of life to the detriment of local children’s education. In Southern

Africa, an example of such a place is Mozambique where bilingual education was introduced in order to improve the education of local language speaking learners (Chimbutane, 2011; Terra,

2014) who had been put in a disadvantage by adherence to Portuguese when not everybody had enough knowledge of this ex-colonial language (e.g. Stroud, 1999). The educational need of the children has therefore led to the language-in-education planning for isiXhosa, which entails also enhances its acquisition status as the language’s educational domains increased at the MPS (and other implementing schools).

Translanguaging

Another area that demonstrates the resource orientation of the MPS through the MTBBE program is in the official acceptance and practice of translanguaging as a deliberate and constant classroom practice in the learning and teaching, as well as assessment and examination of math and natural science and technology. As translanguaging occurs in various forms (O. Garcia &

Wei, 2014), the most frequent form in the MPS’s MTBBE program is in the integrated use of transliterations and English terms with isiXhosa for concepts and processes in math and natural science and technology (NS&T). It occurs by morphological and phonological remolding of terms for mathematical and scientific concepts and processes. This remolding and adaptation

171

transforms both isiXhosa and English resulting in one integrated system which makes learning and teaching a flexible and liberating experience for both teachers and learners. Canagarajah

(2011) suggests that while translanguaging is common in daily speech, it is largely unconscious, and therefore must be taught as learning and teaching strategy in the bilingual classroom.

Teachers in the MPS reported that they were trained in the MTBBE program to use the said transliterated forms in teaching, and learners were taught to apply them in order for the learners to grasp mathematical and scientific concepts and processes, as well as the lingo associated with the two subjects.

Also, Nokhanyo’s response to a question about teachers’ querying of the fact that the examination paper for the bilingual grades and subjects was not fully bilingual, was the assertion that the focus of assessment was not on language purism, but on the learners’ content comprehension reflected in answers in any form of language use. This assertion is suggestive of the promotion of languaging fluidity, which characterizes translanguaging, in the math and science bilingual classroom. In so doing it creates space for the two languages to function in

“noncompeting roles . . . [and] complemenarit[y]” (O. Garcia, p. 147) to enable teachers and learners to “construct understandings, and make sense of . . . the academic material” (O. Garcia, p. 148).

In its implied promotion of translanguaging flexibility, Nokhanyo’s answer mentioned above can be misinterpreted as implying that language development is not regarded as important in the MTBBE model of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. However the above answer does not reflect or imply neglect of language proficiency and literacy development. Language proficiency as well as biliteracy development in both languages is ensured in the translanguaging practices, and also catered for by the principle of the MTBBE that says the isiXhosa teacher and

172

the English teacher must make sure that s/he teaches the language (s) thoroughly and effectively.

The emphasis on the effective teaching of the two languages was due to the fact that a good knowledge of each of the languages will enhance students’ comprehension of classroom learning and of assessment questions, and students’ ability to answer exam questions.

Use of Both L1 and L2 in Assessment

The language as a resource orientation is also seen in the planning for the use of the learners’ L1, isiXhosa, in all assessment including the end of term and end of the year examinations. Instead of examination question papers being in English only, or exclusively in isiXhosa, for math and NS&Tech, they were reported to have been in isiXhosa with English terms written in brackets to further boost the children’s understanding of examination questions.

This again was language-in-education and further domain acquisition planning for isiXhosa. This planning further enhances the status of isiXhosa, hopefully in the eyes of the learners who the teachers hoped will realize that they had been able to start their education in their L1, at FP, and continued to acquire mathematics and science-and-technology knowledge in their own mother tongue. This might boost the learners’ self-confidence and affirm their identity as L1 speakers of isiXhosa. Research shows that involvement of student’s own language, and other identity markers, in their education might have a positive effect in their enthusiasm to learn and thus in their academic performance and achievement (Lee, 2002). Lack of such inclusion might have an opposite effect (Cummins, 1979).

Status Equalization of L1 and L2

Another perspective of the stakeholders that the findings reveal is in connection with status equalization between English and isiXhosa. This equalization of status of the two languages is another effect of the resource-orientation to language planning connected with the principles and practices of the MTBBE program. The effect of the role each language plays in

173

teaching and assessment is that English remains high in status because it is said that it is not banned from the classroom. It maintains the role of being a resource language, which plays an important role in ensuring comprehension. While its status is maintained in the MTBBE implementational principles and practice, it is not overstated as a means of educational access or intellectual development above isiXhosa, the children’s L1. Here one sees the relevance of the literature that gives exposition of benefits of being bilingual (Greene, 1998; Marian & Shook,

2012).

The LPP effect of the MTBBE on isiXhosa is that the language is promoted to a status equal to that of English by being used as the LOLT for the most feared subjects, math and natural science and technology. The language thus acquired an elevated status in the program and curriculum. Judging by the reported good impact of the free use of isiXhosa on the learners’ classroom participation, it is possible that the status and prestige of the language have been boosted also in the minds of the parents, and especially of the young developing minds, the learners. One of the stated goals of the MTBBE is that children must develop a sense of value for their language as a language in which they can learn important subjects, and in which they can think and develop intellectually. This is part of what Baldauf (2004) describes as prestige planning for the language. The teachers expressed the view that that the program was going to have this effect on the children, that of growing up knowing that it is important to know math and science concepts in their L1. These are therefore the beginnings of intellectualization of isiXhosa as an African language (Braam, 2012).

This intellectualization of the language is a part fulfillment of a draft policy that was passed in June 2013, by South Africa’s national Department of Basic Education. The Draft

Policy’s purpose is to promote the equitable use of South African languages in all South African

174

schools. The policy is called The Incremental Introduction of African Languages in South

African Schools, Draft Policy. Although the Draft Policy is relevant more to those schools in

South Africa that do not offer any African languages in their curriculum, the implementation of the policy may lead to the gradual increase in intellectualization of the African languages of the country. The beginning of the intellectualization of isiXhosa is the beginning of the fulfillment of the country’s constitutional mandate for the development and promotion of African languages.

In conclusion of this section, the importance of corpus, and especially status planning for the isiXhosa language can be highlighted. It can be pointed out that the effect of the language-in- education-planning of isiXhosa for the educational benefit of the Intermediate Phase learners has been the application of all the types of language planning described by Baldauf (2004). The language-in-education planning (Baldauf, 2004) has led to the need for bilingual learning and teaching materials by the addition of isiXhosa LTMs to be used alongside the English versions.

The need for these LTMs has led to corpus planning through the development of isiXhosa versions of math and NS&T workbooks by translation. However, although corpus planning was important, it was limited to the development and local standardization of math and science terminology. Otherwise, the language is fairly well developed in terms of other aspects of corpus planning like orthography and terminology of various kinds.

The language has a long history of development, from missionary times, in terms of spelling and grammar rules (orthography), grammar descriptions dictionary compilations, literature in the form of prose, poetry, drama, bible translations, and other writings.

What has been of more importance, as reflected in participants’ views and perceptions, is status planning. Its greater importance is seen in the greater number of aspects of implementation that entail status planning. The language-in-education planning (Baldauf, 2004) for the mother

175

tongue has led to the official involvement of isiXhosa in the children’s education in the MTBBE program. This has led to increased domain acquisition for isiXhosa in education. This official involvement has, in turn, resulted in several other forms of status planning as reflected in the data, as explained in the following paragraphs.

The use of isiXhosa as a LOLT for the highly rated and weighted mathematics and natural science and technology, and as a medium of their assessment, has fulfilled educational domain acquisition planning, itself a status planning, for the language. The stated goal to conscientize students about their language’s value is an important instance of prestige, and thus further status, planning as it seeks to improve learners’ attitudes towards their L1 and thus to add to the language’s level of prestige. The importance of prestige planning was expressed by almost all the participants, including the teachers, the principal, and the second provincial official,

Thandeka. The teachers also saw the possibility of the enhancement of the language’s prestige, hence status, in the eyes of the Intermediate Phase learners who will have acquired knowledge of math, and of natural science and technology in their own mother tongue. The language-in- education planning further enhances the prestige, and thus status, of isiXhosa in the minds of the parents as expressed by participants in the parents focus group participants.

Also the beginnings of intellectualization of isiXhosa as an African language (Braam,

2012) through the MTBBE program adds another aspect to the status of the language. All these aspects of status planning for the language, isiXhosa, happen contrary to the views some hold that African languages cannot handle math and other scientific subjects. The status and prestige planning for isiXhosa that the MTBBE program has led to, in the views of stakeholders, are important also in view of the skepticism reported in some research studies (Dalvit & De Klerk,

176

2005; De Klerk, 2000) in relation to education based on isiXhosa, the major language of the

Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

Stakeholders’ Understanding of Bilingualness of the Program

A third area of stakeholder perspectives in which the first research question is answered is in relation to how the stakeholders understand the program’s bilingualness. By the time of the current study’s data collection at the MPS, all the teachers and their district level support had undergone considerable professional development in bilingual education knowledge. However, despite the considerable knowledge of bilingual education the stakeholders have for the purposes of their specific context, some of the views they expressed about their understanding of the

MTBBE program’s bilingualness show that there are aspects of bilingual education theory and of language policy and planning that the teachers and other participants still need to be exposed to

(e.g. Throop, 2007). One of such aspects is assessment. Teachers expressed expectations and wishes for exam papers to be fully bilingual while the pedagogic practices are based on predominant use of the L1 and supportive us of L2 math and scientific terms written in brackets.

This reflects a contradiction which in turn points to a gap in the understanding of the school’s bilingual education model and at least one of its principles, the one about how the L1 and the L2 should be used in instruction as well as in examination question papers. The contradiction also points to a gap in understanding the issue of validity in assessment. Situations like these led to production, in the U.S., of several series of publications providing an answer to the probing question, “What should teachers know about assessment?” and other aspects of teaching of minority language students. These publications cover many of the pertinent issues regarding the teaching and assessment of students for whom English is a non-mother tongue.

On the other hand, the perspective revealed by the above mentioned query of the non- fully bilingual question paper is that although they have never experienced bilingual education

177

before the implementation of the MTBBE, the teachers have a good idea of the concept, bilingual. They appeared to query the bilingualness of the program, as they considered the amount of isiXhosa used compared to that of English. With no prior experience with bilingual education in the education system for Africans in the country, the little understanding of the type of model that the MTBBE program is, is understandable

Moreover, it is apparent that the availability of a fully bilingual matric exam paper for

English-Afrikaans learners every year in the country, was the only example they have had of anything bilingual in education, until the advent of the MTBBE program. The provision by the

Province of a similarly fully isiXhosa-English bilingual exam paper for the piloting schools’

Grade 9 in the previous year might have added to this understanding of the concept ‘bilingual education.’ Hence the said querying of the Grades 4 and 5 exam paper’s level of bilingualness is important to consider.

What is remarkable, though, is the fact that the focus of the query was only on assessment and not on the method of teaching in isiXhosa and using English for further simplifying the input. This seems to indicate apparent satisfaction with the mainly isiXhosa teaching method which is a major aspect of the design of the program. This apparent satisfaction is related to one of the findings in Dalvit and De Klerk’s (2005) study on the attitudes of Fort Hare isiXhosa speaking students to L1 education, namely that isiXhosa explanations of otherwise English medium university lectures would be acceptable. The embrace shown to isiXhosa explanations of otherwise English medium university lectures was in spite of the fact that the students were advocating total English medium education for amaXhosa children even from Grade R. The relationship is in the fact that this ambivalent finding among the university students reflects the need for L1 based bilingual education even at university level. At the research site level, this

178

contradictory situation is an indication of the little understanding that there is in the country as a whole about bilingual education and the many issues entailed in the education of students who are speakers of marginalized languages.

It could also be a matter of ideology that makes an unexpressed comparison with the fact that for matric final examinations, students who are speakers of non-African languages receive fully bilingual English and Afrikaans examination question papers. The teachers pointed out that for isiXhosa (and by extension, African language) speaking students there is no such an accommodation in the form of a bilingual examination paper. The teachers might be seeing in the introduction of the MTBBE a chance to advocate for fully bilingual examination papers for isiXhosa speaking matric students, too. This may further be an indirect call for the MTBBE to be a different model of bilingual education program, apparently, a 50-50 dual medium program. In the Eastern Cape context though, the dual-medium program might have some differences from the same type as practiced in other countries like the United States and Canada, where it has had a long tradition. One of the main features of difference would be that in rural contexts like the

MPS and the greater part of the Eastern Cape, there would be isiXhosa speaking students only, and no English speaking counter parts.

Program Continuation and Extension

Stakeholders showed a positive attitude towards the MTBBE program. The teachers and other stakeholders embrace the bilingual program and want it not only to continue being an approach to teach math and science in the Intermediate Phase, but also expressed the wish and desire that it might be extended to the Senior Phase in the school. They also even went further as to wish that it could be implemented for all grades up to Grade 12, and, if possible, beyond. They identified several benefits and favorable contextual factors that strengthened the stakeholders’ expressed hope and desire for the continuation and extension of the program, to matric and

179

beyond. The stakeholders also mentioned a few unfavorable factors that they said were hampering the effectiveness of the bilingual education program just begun.

Benefits of the Program

The participants mentioned the fact that the learners became free to participate in the classroom. This became a reality as they now were allowed to speak and interact mainly in their

L1 mixed with English, and so had no anxiety about breaking English language rules. Opposite findings where learners’ communication has been hindered by the exclusive use of English in classroom have been reported among learners in Ghana (Oponku-Amankwa, 2009), where a learner who could not respond to a teacher’ s questions in class told the researcher that she kept quiet, although she knew the answer, for fear of reprisal in case she used broken English. In

Mozambique Chimbutane (2010) found that learners were quiet in classrooms where they were taught in Portuguese only, and were exuberant in classes where they were they were addressed and taught in their L1.

The program’s principle of L1 main use, and English supportive role in the form of transliterated and actual English words for concepts, was fulfilled in teacher-learner and learner- learner interaction during interactive discussions of math calculations. This interaction was in the form of translanguaging that involved not only the transliterated English words but also an adaptation of English words into isiXhosa morpho-syntatctic structure by giving some appropriate prefixes and suffixes. The occurrence of translanguaging in an isiXhosa unique way is supported by literature that speaks of different ways of translanguaging (O. Garcia & Wei,

2014) and of translanguaging occurring unconsciously among different languages (Canagarajah,

2011) as they exist in an ecological relationship (Creese & Blackwell, 2010), like isiXhosa and

English do in the MPS, as also in the districts and in the Province of the Eastern Cape, and beyond. Another benefit is the use of translanguaging in the classroom and its allowance in the

180

examination question papers and learners’ answers. Translanguaging as it allows fluidity rather than rigidity in language use, is suitable to reach the central goal of the MTBBE program which the participants stated as use of language for content comprehensibility for better educational accessibility, which implies removal of language barrier to educational access (cf O. Garcia,

2011).

Political benefits

Some of the benefits that the stakeholders stated were the political benefit for the BD-1 and the Eastern Cape Province, for being the first district and province, respectively, to implement bilingual education in the country between an African language and English. The

Province of the Eastern Cape has also been placed on the map in the country by being the first province to establish a Language-in-Education-Policy (LiEP) Unit in the country since the publication of the National Language Policy Framework in 2003 (Beukes, 2008). Thus this is the first step taken in the country to remedy the non-implementation of the policy for a long time, a situation that Beukes (2008) describes as a dashing of hopes. Coupled with this are the significant steps that were taken to get the MTBBE running. This gives stakeholders hope that the MTBBE will be continued. In fact one of the government officials at district level expressed the opinion that it was possible that even at the time of data collection they were no longer just piloting, that the program was there to stay and that other schools would soon be mandated to implement bilingual education, at least at the Intermediate Phase. If such a mandate is issued, it will be another top-down LPP activity.

Economic benefits

A very important benefit was the economically strategic planning by which the ECDoE had only one person to employ exclusively for running the program, Nokhanyo, as Director. The plan was that people already in the employ of the department would be seconded to the LiEP

181

Unit and be trained in various capacities to assist with the functions of the Unit and the running of the program. In this way the Department would not require much extra funding. This eliminated one of the arguments cited by Heugh (2000) that have been used against implementation of bilingual education in the country, namely, that it would entail expenses. The willingness of the teachers in the BD-1 District to engage in translation as a form of materials development, without pay for this service, also helped eliminate economic arguments against implementation. Therefore the program has a high chance of being continued.

Another economic benefit for the ECDoE was the teachers’ dedication to the program evidenced by their contribution to the development of initial LTMs. Stakeholders reported that some teachers from the MPS met with teachers from other piloting schools and helped in the translation of the workbooks for math and natural science and technology. The teachers’ willingness to do this arduous job is economically advantageous for they do it freely as part of their training for the MTBBE. At the time of data collection isiXhosa versions of math workbooks for Grades 4 and 5 were already available. The teachers reported that translation of

Grades 4 and 5 NST workbooks had been completed, and the books were in the process of being rolled and bound, and would be ready by the beginning of the next academic year, in January

2014.

Parents-school relationship enhanced

The bilingual program was reported to have enhanced the role of parents in the home- school relationship. The parents are also taking active interest in helping the learners with school work and consulting the teacher concerned if they have questions or concerns. The principal of the triangulation school, the Siyazama Primary School (SPS) who saw the need to translate other documents that improved parents ‘access to information and ability to deliberate in school- parents’ meetings, also evidenced this enhancement. The general happiness of parents with the

182

program means support for the program’s continuation and extension to other grades. Research has shown that parents’ school involvement improves learners’ academic performance (Topor,

Keane, Shelton, & Calkins, 2010).

Benefits for the children

The most important benefit reported by stakeholders, and also seen in classroom observations, concerning Grades 4 and 5 learners (by 2013), was enhanced classroom participation, because of being taught, and expected to ask and reply to questions, in their L1 together with English, rather than exclusively in English or the L1. The reported academic improvement in math exams was another benefit for the learners and an indicator for a level of the program’s effectiveness. The results of the examinations so far indicated improvement in academic achievement. The use of students’ L1 in learning the highly esteemed subjects, math and NS &T, coupled with the visibility of their culture in the learning and teaching situation, boosted students’ self image and identity.

Literature exists that shows that when African language speaking students are taught in a language they are not entirely familiar with, their classroom participation is limited, their academic achievement affected and their self confidence is diminished. Writing about Ghana, for example, it has been found that either depriving the children of an L1 based education especially at the early stages of the education, or exiting them too early, affects their learning throughout schooling (Owu-Ewie, 2006) and that students lose confidence to participate in class because of fear of reprisal if they break English grammar rules (Opoku-Amankwa, 2009). Chimbutane’s

(2011) study of interaction in bilingual education classrooms in Mozambique showed that in those subjects and classrooms in which the L2, namely, Portuguese, was used very few learners participated. Most of the learners showed lack of confidence and would even avoid eye contact with the teacher. However, the study found that the same students participated exuberantly in

183

classrooms where their L1 was used. Unlike in the two cases above, stakeholders associated with the mother tongue based bilingual education program practiced at the Mzamo Primary

School reported a more positive picture of the effects of the program on the children at the school. Another benefit pointed out by the DO2 was that the translation and ultimate production of an isiXhosa version of the workbook would give the bilingual education learners the advantage of having two books, an isiXhosa version and an English one. All these benefits contribute to the finding about the participants’ expressed hope that the program would continue, and that it could even be extended.

Contextual Factors

There are certain situations that participants mentioned which affect the implementation of the school’s mother tongue based bilingual education program. Some are situations that enable the program to work and give the stakeholders hope for the continuation and even extension of the program. Others may affect it adversely, in the views of the participants.

Favorable Factors

The favorable contextual factors discussed below include teacher commitment’s potential contribution to the effectiveness of the program, good teacher characteristics, including collaboration and love for the children, good leadership, and best teachers for the Intermediate

Phase. With regards to the effectiveness of the program the findings show the importance of committed teachers. The innermost peel of the provincial LPP onion, the teachers as exemplified by MPS teachers, expressed views that reflected their happiness with, and commitment to the program. For instance even though they complained about the dire shortage of teachers, the MPS teachers kept lamenting the effect the shortage had on their carrying out their duties including the practices related to the bilingual education program. But they were not complaining about the program itself. They expressed satisfaction with the results of the innovation that they were

184

seeing thus far. The various ways in which they expressed satisfaction with the program collectively form one of the biggest reasons why there is hope that the bilingual program would continue and even be extended to other classes and other schools. This hope was corroborated by the DO2 and Nokhanyo, the main driver behind the bilingual education program at the MPS.

While teacher commitment is important for all learners, it is even more urgent that teachers of speakers of marginalized languages be committed because of the added work that must be put into their teaching. The finding on good teacher characteristics shows that the MPS teachers are committed to the work, have good collaboration among themselves, and they love the children they teach in the program as well. In South Africa, and at the MPS, teacher commitment is even more important as the implementation of bilingual education is new, and there is still considerable amount of skepticism against it. Studies on bilingual education program effectiveness point out that committed teachers are the core need for effectiveness. (Freeman,

1998; Mace-Matluck, 1990)

Good leadership was also important for the effectiveness of the MTBBE program. We learn this from the aspect of the historical finding that describes the criteria for choosing the

MPS even before the invitation to join the program was opened to many more schools than just the initial two planned by the Province. One of the criteria cited, besides the teachers who are good with foundation and Intermediate Phases, was good administration of the school. The

District Office, the parents at the parents focus group, as well as the teachers of the school all expressed confidence in the principal and School Management Team. This means that one of the cornerstones of the program is very good and trustworthy leadership. Studies on effectiveness of bilingual education schools emphasize the question of strong, well informed leadership as one of the requirements for the success of these programs (de Jong, 2009; Mace-Matluck, 1990;

185

Zimmerman, 2010). All these reported favorable factors and conditions show that there is hope that the bilingual education of the Eastern Cape may not only be continued for the Intermediate

Phase, but may also be easily extended to the other more advanced phases up to matric and, possibly, beyond.

Unfavorable or Challenging Factors

The unfavorable or challenging situations include low enrolment of learners , the resultant rationalization of teachers that reduced the number of teachers at the MPS, and the consequent shortage of teachers and overload on the remaining teachers. Teachers at the MPS reported that overload they loved the MTBBE program and were trying their best to meet the challenge of shortage of human resources. But this shortage might be a threat to their effective carrying out of their teaching obligations. There is therefore a need for the hiring of more teachers for the effective continuation of the teachers’ commendable work in the IP and in the

MTBBE program at this school (and possible others).

Research shows that regardless of the reasons, teacher shortages and need for employment of more teachers occurs in other educational contexts. In the U.S. the need for more teachers has been caused by, among others, increase in school enrolments, extensive education reforms, as well as sometimes, teacher attrition and retirement (Cortez, 2001). The most serious shortages related to reforms occur in the area of bilingual education, among others. (Cortez,

2001). Such shortages are bound to have an unfavorable impact on teaching practice and students’ achievement, as in the MPS, unless the government modifies its teacher-provisioning ratio, in the case of the schools implementing the bilingual education program.

186

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The study examined major stakeholder perspectives on a bilingual education program in

South Africa. The purpose of the study was to investigate stakeholder perceptions of a bilingual education program in one school in one district, in the predominantly isiXhosa speaking

Province of the Eastern Cape in South Africa. It was to explore the perceptions about the introduction, the choice of the school, implementation of the program and its value in the eyes of the stakeholders.

Rationale and Significance of the Study

Research on isiXhosa-English bilingual education, especially in the rural Eastern Cape, is necessary so as to document the program’s potential for improving the learners’ bilingual and biliteracy learning, their L1 supported English language development (ELD), and their overall academic performance. The perceptions of major stakeholders are crucial to this study for the documentation of the local school, community, and government’s collaborative effort in bilingual education implementation. Documentation of bilingual education’s potential as an intervention for education improvement is necessary, especially in the face of the reported skepticism (e.g. De Klerk, 2000) about mother tongue- or isiXhosa-based education (e.g.

Aziakpono, & Bekker, 2010; Barkhuizen, 2002; Dalvit, & De Klerk, 2005) in the country and the province. While some studies only partially address bilingual practices, predominantly code- switching, and others focus only on single groups of stakeholders, e.g. teachers (Kimpel, 2007), parents (De Klerk 2002), or students (Barkhuizen, 2002; Dalvit & De Klerk, 2005), this study presents a more complete picture by looking at several major stakeholders’ views, including some levels of government policy and decision makers and implementers, with regard to the

187

introduction, understanding and practices of the bilingual education program in a local school context, and its effect as an educational intervention. In this way, the study will contribute to the knowledge of bilingual education between an African language, isiXhosa, and English, in South

Africa. This knowledge might also contribute to efforts for further advocacy for bilingual education as an essential intervention in the education of all children, but especially those in rural and semi-urban areas.

Therefore, this initial exploration of local, district, and provincial stakeholder perceptions is necessary and significant for the demonstration of the possibility of bilingual education implementation, and the latter’s potential educational benefits in South Africa. It is also an important, though locally confined, exposition of changes in attitudes toward mother tongue- based education in the country. Thirdly, it is important as a pointer to the necessity of further research in the area of implementation of the country’s constitution in the field of education.

It is significant as a contribution to research-based resources for wider advocacy and implementation of bilingual education in other districts in the Eastern Cape Province in the immediate to medium term, and to other provinces in the country in the not distant future. It is also significant as a contribution to the body of knowledge of bilingual education in the country and beyond. The analysis of interviews and classroom observations resulted in eight key findings. These findings are summarized and their implications for further research, policy, and practice are presented in this chapter.

Finding # 1: Language as a Resource

The mother tongue-based bilingual education of the Mzamo Primary School (MPS) views linguistic diversity as language as a resource and not as a problem (Ruiz, 1984). Both isiXhosa, the L1, and English, the L2, were treated as important for making education accessible

188

to the learners. This approach played an important role in the effectiveness of the program and its reported positive impact on children’s classroom participation and academic performance.

The implication of this might be a change of education policy to allow all children at the early stages up to at least six years of education to experience learning and teaching in their mother tongue for the most part. In-depth research should be done on various foci of classroom observation including interaction, specific use of the two languages, translanguaging as well as students’ outcomes. One of the goals of such research should be to inform policy with regard to the extension of the program, for a start, to all schools with endangered Intermediate Phase students in rural and semi-urban schools.

The implication of status equalization of isiXhosa with English as a language of learning and teaching math and natural science and technology is that the equalization should be boosted by an improved visibility of the language in other domains, especially official functions. An example is the translation of the school policy document by the principal of the Siyazama

Primary School, which resulted in parents being able to read and understand the document, leading to greater participation in school parents meetings.

Finding #2: Free Use of Both Languages at Any Time

The free use of both the L1 and the L2 as languages of learning in a supportive relationship backs the idea of adopting an expanded view of language as an entity that is not bound but fluid (Shohamy, 2006). This is a departure from the still prevalent monolingualistic tendencies that give learners limited choice by requiring them to speak either isiXhosa or English at a time. A learning situation which allows this kind of language use freedom reflects an acceptance of the principle of translanguaging which is well known as a bilingual practice of interaction in and outside the learning and teaching situation (De Jong, 2009; Freeman, et al.,

2014; Garcia, 2014). The implication here is that the attitude that a language is a bound and

189

perfect entity that must be spoken or written exclusively in certain strict ways has to be revised in education. As Nokhanyo remarked about the need for teachers to be accustomed, but not be bound by high standards of language purism in their application of mother tongue education, a balance must be struck between valid needs for standardization and educational needs of the learners. This also requires research into language use in education and how strict standardization rules can be revised to enable language to make learning and interaction easy, as the practice of translanguaging does. It is recommended that the government commission applied linguists and language education practitioners to undertake such research so that policy changes and education-related decisions at higher levels will be depend on research-based information.

Finding #3 Teacher Commitment

Committed and prepared teachers are at the core of successful bilingual programs. The need for teacher education to include bilingual education knowledge cannot be overemphasized.

However, reference has been made to Thandeka’s dynamism in acquiring bilingual education knowledge and teacher training on the job as part of the implementation of the MTBBE program.

The implication here is that while teacher education is essential for bilingual classroom teachers, initially teacher training can be done on the job, so that the implementation of bilingual education for the sake of the children is not delayed. It is recommended that teacher education for pre-service teachers in the country include a component on bilingual education. It is also recommended that professional development programs for bilingual education in-service teachers be increased in the province and beyond, and be given priority in the wider Department of Education, and not be confined to the Language-in-Education Policy Unit as it was at the time of data collection.

190

Finding #4 the Importance of Bottom-up LP processes

The fact that a grassroots organization triggered the actions of the ECDoE’s leaders, leading to the establishment of the current MTBBE program at the MPS (and other schools), implies that bilingual education implementation does not have to wait for direct government initiative. Nokhanyo also explained that a school could make its own decision to establish bilingual education. If the school and its SGB make such a decision, the school can approach the

LiEP Unit for support. The government is bound by the LiEP’s provisions to support the school in its choice to implement. The recommendation made in the current study in relation to school level initiative to implement bilingual education is that the LiEP Unit and the Department of

Education should work together to raise the schools’ awareness of this possibility, in order to promote the establishment of bilingual education in the district and the entire province.

Finding # 5 Possibility of Wider Collaboration

The finding that the teachers and their support system have a positive attitude towards the

MTBBE program and that they embrace it is an indication that bilingual education need not be feared. It can be done. As in the case of the teachers whose commitment has been referenced as well as the school’s good administration also mentioned in Chapter 5, there are many other factors already existing in schools on which bilingual education implementation can lean, while relevant education or professional development is also taking place for the teachers and all involved. The fact that the MPS teachers have reported the ways in which they collaborate with one another to make all teaching, including the bilingual education program, successful implies that here, as well as in the other implementing schools, there are collaborators who would be willing to offer information and other assistance whenever it is needed by other schools. Those involved in translation of the math and NST workbooks from English to isiXhosa reported this kind of mutual assistance during the development of the LTMs.

191

Limitations of the Study

With regard to the effectiveness of the program, it must be pointed out that the period during which the MTBBE program had been running when this study’s data collection was done was still very short. Not much could be reported in terms of long term observed outcomes of the program academically and in terms of language attitudes especially towards isiXhosa as language of learning and teaching, and of intellectual development. The current study did not do an in-depth classroom observation as its own classroom observation was done to corroborate the views stakeholders expressed about their classroom practices. Another limitation of the study is the fact that the study was only over a short time, and was not an ethnographic study. Long period observations of important aspects like implementational practices and students’ outcomes, could not be made.

As the study’s main focus was on perceptions of stakeholders about the initiation and implementation of the program, the primary stakeholders in an educational situation, namely, the students, were not interviewed for their views for the current study. The student input to the stakeholder perceptions in the study is therefore lacking. The study also focused on one local school as its main site, and the other school only for triangulation data. No comparison with other implementing schools in the district and with non-implementing schools was made in order to gain a broader insight into the practices of the MTBBE program, and comparable outcomes.

Consequently, the study’s participants, especially teachers and parents, may not be adequately representative of all the teachers and parents who are associated with the MTBBE program in the

DB-1 District, the only district that was implementing during data collection. Also, as the parents in the study’s focus group were recommended by the school’s management team (SMT), they may not be fully representative of all the parents that are associated with the study’s main data collection site, or of all parents’ views and perspectives about the program. The fact that the

192

school administrators invited the parents who must form the parents focus group by letter may have biased the sample. The school management might have chosen people known to be in agreement with the school’s bilingual education program. In so doing they might have left out those who might not agree with the program, thus excluding the views of the latter group. This possible limitation is made up for by the fact that there are eleven other interviews, which ultimately should prevent any lack of reliability of the findings.

Further Research Lines

The current study investigated the perspectives and perceptions of only teachers, parents and government officials associated with the bilingual education program of the Mzamo primary school. It is necessary to investigate the views of the most primary stakeholders of the bilingual education program, namely, the learners themselves to find out the impact of the program on their learning and academic development. Specifically, it is necessary to look at the cohort of students who started with the MTBBE program from Grade 4 through Grade 6 and interview them about how they fared in the program, what they thought of the program’s impact on their academic performance and achievement as well as on their development in biliteracy and bilingual proficiency.

The study did not do an in-depth classroom observation as its own classroom observation was done to corroborate the views stakeholders expressed about classroom practices. Research is necessary to focus on specific aspects of classroom practices, including an in-depth study of classroom interaction and translanguaging as one of its strategies. Ethnographic studies are necessary for a long period observation of important aspects like implementational practices, biliteracy and bilingual proficiency development and students’ outcomes in the bilingually taught math and science. An ethnographic study would also afford enough time for practical

193

observation and documentation of how the bilingual program at the school helps learners’ transition from one LOLT situation to another, among the three that they go through at the school, as well as for engaging a more representative sample of parents and other participants.

Another advantage of an ethnographic study could be the observation of strategies for biliteracy and bilingual proficiency development among the children in the Intermediate Phase.

Such a study would help determine the extent to which the MTBBE makes learners ready for the all-English environment they are going to experience at Grade 7 of the Senior Phase and beyond.

These aspects could not be observed during the limited time of the study’s data collection.

194

APPENDIX A TEACHERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. What do you think of the bilingual program in which you are participating at the school?

2. Could you please tell me why, and how bilingual education was initiated at the school?

3. What are your reasons for teaching at a school, like this one, with a bilingual program?

4. How is the way you teach the bilingual classes different from how you taught before this program introduction to the school?

5. How much role does each of isiXhosa and English play in the bilingual program?

6. Why do you think the program is important?

7. What is it that you want to achieve with this program?

8. What motivates you (teacher, school admin person, or government officer) to continue being involved in the program?

9. What do you see as benefit for the learners in the bilingual program of the school?

10. What do you see as benefit for the school in being involved in bilingual education?

11. Please share with me your vision for the school and this program [to the administrative members: the principal, deputy, the 2 district officers; and the 2 provincial officers]

12. How do you prepare the Foundation Phase learners for joining the bilingual education program when the time comes?

13. If you are a 4th grade teacher, what is the level of the learners’ isiXhosa and English language literacy?

14. What strategies are in place for helping learners from the bilingual program (grade 6) adjust with being taught everything in English? In other words, how will they transition into grade 7?

15. What are the challenges you encounter in the practice of the bilingual program at this school?

16. Do you think the school is successful in implementing the bilingual program? Why do you think so?

195

APPENDIX B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Classroom and Subject (e.g. Grade 4, Science) Time and Duration: Teacher: School: MPS Date Observer: Buyiswa Mini

What to observe Classroom arrangement Student-Teacher Rapport: Use of isiXhosa to support English learning, and vice versa

Transitional instructional strategies.

Other bilingual practices

Others points of observation will depend on what the teachers say in the interviews.

196

APPENDIX C PARENTS FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE

17. Could you please tell me why and how bilingual education became implemented at the school?

18. What was the role played by the parents and community in the introduction of bilingual education in the local school?

19. What made you, as parents, agree to have bilingual education for your children?

20. Why do you think the bilingual program of the school is necessary and good?

21. What role do you as parents play to support bilingual education at the school?

22. What are the challenges that you see the school program is facing?

23. Do you think the school is successful in implementing the bilingual program? Why do you think so?

24. How do you support your child’s biliteracy development?

25. What are the challenges that the school is faced with in the practice of bilingual education?

26. What is it that you want to achieve with this program?

27. What was/is the reason for choosing this type of bilingual program for the school?

28. What is your vision for the school and this program?

29. Do you think the school is successful in implementing the bilingual program? Please explain why.

197

APPENDIX D. RESEARCH TRAVELS AND ACTIVITIES

Table D-1. Summary of research activities DATE Summary of Activities Wed Flew to South Africa Nov. 30, 2013 Thurs. Arrived in Johannesburg to arrange transportation means for the research period Nov 31 Sat Dec Flew to East London, Eastern Cape 2, 2013 Mon Nov I travelled from East London to Ndabakazi where I was going to stay for the duration of my data 4th collection time at the MPS, mainly Tues From Ndabakazi to District Office in Cofimvaba town. Miss Noncedo (pseudonym), who was my chief Nov 5 contact with the district office and the schools took rounds with me, introducing me to relevant office staff, e.g. Curriculum Education Specialist (CES). Then she took me to the schools, Siyazama primary School (SPS) and Mzamo Primary School (MPS). At the MPS we spent more time and were joined by another district officer for courtesy and for first day introductions to the main site school.

Wed 6th Class Observation according to availability: Nov Principal and 2nd in command tell me that because of teacher shortage it is not possible to always stick 2013 to the official schedule/time table of classes. Hence classroom observation will be according to class teacher availability. Grade 1 English and then Math. This was helpful and relevant to the question of transitional practices. It helped me see how teaching in isiXhosa is done, and how English is involved at, I would say 30% vocabulary level; simple sentences; and phonics and spelling. I saw that this was relevant because they told me that their goal was for children to have developed sufficient literacy skills in both isiXhosa and English. Grade 1 English not assessed for progression to next grade. But taught well. That is why they rely on that even for transition purposes to Gr 4 and then from Gr 6 to Grade 7. Then, Municipal health workers came to address the school, including all classes, on health matters. That took about 2 hours We sat with 2nd in command to adjust my time table to the time they had. Observed Grade 4 and 5 Math by Teacher NST.

Thurs 7th No school. On an official excursion. Told not to come. Nov 2013

Friday Teachers to workshop. Virtually no school. Told not to come. 8th Nov Mon 11th Grade 4 & 5 Geography. Supposed to be taught in English. But taught in mixed isiXh and English. No Nov diff from officially allowed MTBBE taught subjects. So, it was good to observe this class as well. Grades 7 and 9 isiXhosa class. Revision for coming examination. Going over a previous year question paper, for practice.

Tues I was invited to the Grade R classroom by its teacher. Besides being courteous to the teacher, I also Nov 12th wanted to observe how this class prepares the children for strong literacy development in isiXhosa, which the introduction of the MTBBE made a one of the cornerstone for the success of MTBBE at Grade 4, 5, and 6, according to what the teachers had told me in informal conversations. Later I learned that there were no specific transitional strategies limited to Grades 3 and 6 or 7. But transition to English was a strategy employed already at Grade one, and permeated all classes. So, in that context, it became relevant for me to observe Grade R and learn about what happens there. Those data will help answer my research questions. Grade 5 Natural Science and Technology.

198

Table 3-2. Continued DATE Summary of Activities Wed Nov 13 Discussed, with school’s second-in command, about my schedule from now onwards, adapting it to available time periods for the school’s teachers, etc. Observed Grade 2 English. Later, I assisted isiXhosa language teacher with an issue in isiXhosa grammar. In this way I was ploughing back, kind of, in a small way, to the school. Thursday Nov Observed Math revision class: Grades 6 and 7 14. 10h27 a.m.: Grade 4 and 5 math with Teacher MPS-M.

Fri Nov 15. The teachers told me yesterday not to come this Friday as they will be busy with the general cleaning of the school. The more senior students are involved in the cleaning of the school. And the teachers supervise them.

Monday, Nov Today, two teachers are invigilating Grades 3, and 6 exams. The second-in-command cannot be at 18 her Grades 4 and 5 class either. She has gone to the District Office. A lot of issues at this time require this driving to and from the District Office, every now and then. This reduces chances of class observations or interviews. I asked to observe Grade 7 history exam. I wanted to see if they are allowed to ask questions if they do not understand English, which is the LOLT for all subjects in the Senior Phase, grades 7, 8 and 9. Students ask for clarification of some questions in fully in isiXhosa except for a few terms which they speak in English. Explanations from the invigilating teacher also come in like manner.

Tuesday Nov I am guided to sit in the computer room with doubles up for many other purposes. In this room 19. Grade 7 students are writing their math exam. From time to time they ask questions in isiXhosa, for clarification. But they are writing an English paper. This demonstrates to me the need for fully bilingual teaching and assessment in this grade as well. Focus Group Interview with the teachers. Explained more elsewhere. Wednesday I gave the MPS school some breathing space while visiting a neighboring school. I codename it Nov 20, 2013 Siyazama Primary School (SPS). There I waited for availability of participants. Got opportunity to observe the Grades 4 and 5 Math teacher. With her help I arranged for focus group with Grades 3, 6 and 7 teachers the following day. They seemed agreeable. But were not available the following day. The principal of the school was interviewed both as principal/school administrator, and as Grade 7 English teacher at the school. Thurs. Nov Back to SPS. Two Interviews, here: Principal, and the only teacher teaching the bilingual Grades 4 21, 2013 and 5 in 2013. Grade 6 will be in the bilingual program in 2014.

Fri., Nov 22, General cleaning day. I did not go. 2013. Mon. Nov 25, I was not well. No energy. I sent a text message to MPS’ second-in command tor report this 2013 Tuesday 26 Feeling better that afternoon I called second-in-command to let her know I was coming the Nov 2013. following day, Tuesday 26 Nov 2013. She told me they had a very tight schedule, including grading and preparing schedules that were required at the District office by the Friday the 29th that week. So, I only went back to the school the following day. Wed Nov 27, The Principal and the teachers, at various moments told me how busy they were that morning. I 2013 kept smiling and empathizing. Parents came for the parent’s focus group interview. That went well too. Interviewed grades 4 and 5 English and Math teacher (second –in command) Interviewed NS&T teacher Thursday 28 Interviewed language teacher and principal Nov., 2013

Fri. Nov. 29, Teachers very busy with district required work, and also with helping at the bereaved family in the 2013. neighborhood. I drove home, to east London.

199

Table 3-2. Continued DATE Summary of Activities Monday Dec 2, Drove to the District Office to interview the District Director. 2013 In the evening I discovered that my audio-recorder had not recorded the MPS teachers. I called and requested to come the following day for a re-interview. They agreed.

Mon. evening, Second-in-command agreed that I could come and interview her in her house as she was going Dec 2, 2013 to be very busy the following morning.

Tues. Dec 3, 2013 Interviewed for the second time, the language teacher and the NS&T teacher and the Principal

Wed Dec 4, 2013 Back to the school to talk to the Grade R teacher about materials she has for Grade R.

Thurs. Dec 5, (Schools closed) 2013. Interviewed second District official, who is also a subject advisor for natural science. Interview took place at his house. Friday Dec 6, Followed up appointment emails and text messages with the Provincial officials. Got an 2013. appointment for both on, when the two interviews took place. Wed Dec 11, Drove to Zwelitsha, King Williamstown to the provincial office. Interviewed the two 2013 Provincial officers, Thandeka and Nokhanyo. Dec 12 to 29, Made preparations to return to the U.S. on Dec 30, 2013, to be ready for the Spring 2014 term 2013 at UF.

200

APPENDIX E INTERVIEW DETAILS

Table E-1. Interview Dates, Duration and Comments INTERVIEW DATE DURATION COMMENTS MPS Principal 12-4- 52mins Redone. Recorder did not take 1st one. Otherwise went well 2013 both times. MPS teachers had another commitment to rush to – death in the community MPS 2nd-in 12-3- 44:01 Redone. Same command 2013 Parents FGI 11-27- More than hour. Went well. But recorder lost 2013 But only 16:07 some of the recording. mins. Recorded. Teachers FGI 11-19- 1:11:36 Went very well 2013. DO-1 12-2-13 More than hour. Went well. But recorder lost But only 20:23 some of the recording. mins. Recorded. NST Teacher, 12-4-13 54:59 Redone. Same as above, in 1st report. MPS Teacher L, 12-4-13 1:01:53 Redone. Same as above MPS DO-2 12-5-13 2:37:24 Went very well Emails follow- 12-6-13 I followed up appointment emails and text messages with the up Provincial officials. By phone. Got an appointment for both on Wed Dec 11, 2013, when the two interviews took place.

Thandeka 12-11- 2:18:26 Went very well (Prov-2) 2013 Nokhanyo 12-11- 1:50:04 Went very well (Prov-1) 2013 SPS Math 11-21- 41:49 Went very well. TRIANGULATION Teacher 2013 SPS Principal 11-21- 56:48 Went very well. TRIANGULATION 2013

201

REFERENCE LIST

Agnihotri, R.K. (1995). Multilingualism as a classroom resource. In K. Heugh, A. Siegrühn, & P. Plüddemann (Eds.). Multilingual education for South Africa. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Alcock, S.S. (2008). Mother tongues in a twist. Mail & Guardian Online Print Media Articles. From http://www.africanvoices.co.za/media/tonguesintwist.htm. Retrieved March 10, 2009.

Alexander, N. (2000). English unassailable but unattainable: The dilemma of language policy in South African education. PRAESA – Occasional Papers, 3.

Alexander, N. (2004). The politics of language planning in South Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28 (2), 113-130

Alexander, N. (2006). Language medium policy and practice as barrier to quality education. From http://search.live.com/results.aspx Retrieved March 10, 2009.

Alexander, A. (2009). Alexander, N. (2009). Mother Tongue Based Bilingual Education in Africa: A Cultural and Intellectual Imperative. In I. Gogolin, and U. Neumann. Streitfall zweisprachigkeit – The bilingualism controversy. Wiesbaden: Springer International Publishing AG.

Alidou, H. (2009). Promoting multi-lingual and multi-cultural education in Francophone Africa: Challenges and perspectives. In B. Brock-Utne, & I. Skattum (Eds.). Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford (U.K.): Symposium Books.

Alidou, H.; Boly, A.; Brock-Utne, B.; Diallo, Y.S.; Heugh, H.; and Wolff, E. (2006). Optimizing learning and education in Africa - The language factor: A stock-taking research on mother tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) UNESCO Institute for Education

Armbrister, A. L. (2010). Non-native speakers reach higher ground: A study of reciprocal teaching’s effects on English language learners. Dissertation. Capella University.

Aziakpono, P., & Bekker, I. (2010). The attitude of isiXhosa-speaking students towards language of learning and teaching issues at Rhodes University, South Africa: General trends. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Studies, 28 (1), 39 – 60.

Bamgbose, A. (1991). Language and the nation: The language question in sub-Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Banda, F. (2000). The Dilemma of the Mother Tongue: Prospects for Bilingual Education in South Africa. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13 (1), 51-66

202

Barkhuizen, G.P. (2002). Language-in-education policy: students’ perceptions of the status and role of [isi]Xhosa and English. System, 30, 499 – 515.

Barnes, L. (2004). Additive bilingualism in the South African language-in-education policy: Is there proof of the pudding? Alternation, 11 (2), 44-61.

Batibo, H.M. (2005). Language decline and death in Africa: Causes, consequences and challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

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.

Benson, C. J. (2004). Do we expect too much of bilingual teachers? Bilingual teaching in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (2-3),

Benson, C. (2005). The importance of mother tongue based schooling for educational quality. EFA Global Monitoring Report.

Beukes, A.M. (2008). Language policy implementation in South Africa: How Kempton Park's great expectations are dashed in Tshwane. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 38, 1-26

Blackledge, A. (2008). Language ecology and language ideology. In A. Creese, P. Martin and N.H. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Ed., 27–40.

Bourgoin, R. (2014). Inclusionary practices in French immersion: A need to link research to practice. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 5 (1),

Braam, D. (2012). A boost for mother-tongue learning: The Eastern Cape pioneers a project that extends home-language teaching to the first six-years. Mail & Guardian: Africa’s Best Read. From http://mg.co.za/author/daryl-braam Retrieved September, 19, 2013.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101.

Brock-Utne, B., Desai, Z., Qorro, M., & Pitman, A. (2010). Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa: Highlights from a Project. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Broeder, P., Extra, G., & Martens, J. (2002). Multilingualism in South Africa with a focus on KwaZulu-Natal and metropolitan Durban. PRAESA Occasional papers, No.7.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (iii), 401- 417.

Chimbutane, F. (2011). Rethinking bilingual education in postcolonial contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Mattes Ltd.

203

Choice in education. In A. Ouane (Ed.). Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 181 – 191.

Christian, D., Spanos, G., Crandall, J., Simich-Dudgeon, C., & Willetts, K. (1990). Combining language and content for second-language students. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild & C. Valdez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 141-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cortez, A. (2001). Teacher shortages – Implications for reform and achievement for all students. Teacher Demand Study 2000-2001. Intercultural Development Research Association. From www.idra.org/IDRA_News. Retrieved January 3, 2016.

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters

Creese, A., and Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94 (i), 103-115.

Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39 (3), 124 – 130.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222-251

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2003). Bilingual education: Basic principles. In J-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, and L.Wei. Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

Dalvit, L. & De Klerk, V. (2005). Attitudes of [isi] Xhosa-speaking students at the University of Fort Hare towards the use of Xhosa as a language of learning and teaching (LOLT). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language studies, 23(1), 1 - 18.

De Jong, E.J. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

De Klerk, V. (2000). To be [isi]Xhosa or not to be [isi]Xhosa … that is the question. Journal of Multilingual and Multi-cultural Development, 21(3), 198 – 215.

De Palma, R. (2015). Learning a minoritized language in a majority language context: Student agency and the creation of micro-immersion contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education, 18 (4), 426-442.

204

Desai, Z. (2001). Multilingualism in South Africa with particular reference to the role of African languages in education. International Review of Education, 47 (3/4), 323 – 339.

Djite, P.G. (2008). The sociolinguistics of development in Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Education Districts of the EC in Clusters. From http://www.emisec.co.za/downl/Query%20Maps/Completed%20Maps%20for%20web/Cl usters.jpg. Retrieved June 11, 2015.

Edwards, J. (2003). The importance of being bilingual. In J-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, and L.Wei. Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

Feak, C.B., & Swales, J.M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ferguson, 2006

Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Views on bilingualism in the United States: A selective historical review. Bilingual Research Journal, 17 (1 & 2), 35 -56.

Foley, A. (2001). Mother tongue education in South Africa. From http:// englishacademy.co.za/pansalb/education.pdf Retrieved March 12, 2009.

Franken, M. and August, M. (2011). Language use and the instructional strategies of Grade 3 teachers to support ‘bridging’ in Papua New Guinea. Language and Education, 25 (3), 221–239.

Freeman, R.D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Philadelphia: Multilingual matters

Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Ebe, A. (2014). Translanguaging for academic success with emergent bilinguals. Bilingual Basics.

Garcia, E.E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press.

Garcia, O. (2011). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In O. Garcia. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Garcia, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2010). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method 3rd 3d. New York: Routledge.

205

Genesee, F. (2003). Rethinking bilingual acquisition. In J-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, and L.Wei. Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

Genesse, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2008) Dual language education in Canada and the U.S.A. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 253 -263.

Graph of Official Languages of S.A. From http://engl360.pbworks.com/w/page/18970544/SouthAfricanEnglish Retrieved November 9, 2015

Grekin,G. (2008). A brief history of ESL and bilingual education . Teach for America. From teachingasleadership.org/.../ Retrieved November 22, 2012.

Greene, J.P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. From http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/greene.htm. Retrieved Jan 13, 2016

Grosjean, F. (1984). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3 – 15.

Hakuta, K. (1990). Language and cognition in bilingual children. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez. Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Heineke, M.J. & Cameron, Q. (2013). Teacher Preparation and Language Policy Appropriation: A Qualitative Investigation of Teach For America Teachers in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21 (33).

Hendricks, M. (2007). Effective additional language learning: isiXhosa in two South African schools. http://www.isb6.org/static/proceedings/hendricks.pdf. Retrieved March 12, 2009.

Heugh, K. (2001). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa. PRAESA Occasional papers, 6.

Heugh, K. (2002). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa: Laying bare the myths: Many languages in education: Issues of implementation. Perspectives in Education: Many Languages in Education, 20 (Special Issue 1), 171-196

Hornberger, N.H., & Johnson, D.C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (3), 509-532.

206

Hunt, G. (2007). Failure to thrive? The community literacy strand of the additive bilingual project at an Eastern Cape community school, South Africa. Journal of Research in Reading, 30 (1), 80 – 96. In R. Trewby, and S. Fitchat (Eds.). Language and development in Southern Africa

José, E.N. Sr., Padilla, R.V., & López Máez, B. (1992). Bilinguality, intelligence, and cognitive information processing. In R.V. Padilla, & A.H. Benavides (Eds.). Critical perspectives on bilingual education research. Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe.

Kimpel, K.S. (2007). Language policy in South Africa: How rural teachers make sense of the language in education policy. PhD. Dissertation. University of Virginia.

Koch, E., Landon, J., Jackson, M.J., & Foli, C. (2008). Why should we continue with mother tongue-based bilingual education programmes in South Africa: Reflections on highlights and challenges, and principles, content and processes. Presented in a Symposium of the Southern African Applied Linguistics Association (SAALA).

Koch, E., Landon, J., Jackson, M.J., & Foli, C. (2009). First brushstrokes: initial comparative results on the Additive Bilingual Education (ABLE) Project. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(1), 109 - 127.

Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J.J., &Hayes, S.B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uniformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38 (9), 687 – 699.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman. Language and development in Southern Africa: Making the right choices. Windhoek:

Language in Education Policy. 14 July 1997. From http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=XpJ7gz4rPT0%3D&tabid=390& mid=1125. Retrieved September 19, 2013.

Lee, J.S. (2002). The Korean Language in America: The Role of Cultural Identity in Heritage Language Learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15 (2), 117-133

Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). Idealized native speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3), 543 – 560.

Levinson, B.A.U., & Sutton, M. (2001). (Eds.) Policy as practice: Toward a comparative socio-cultural analysis of educational policy. Westport: Ablex Publishing.

Lewis A., & Steyn, J.C. (2003). A critique of mission education in South Africa according to Bosch’s mission paradigm theory. South African Journal of Education, 23(2), 101-106.

Lindholm, K. J. (1990). Bilingual immersion education. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez. Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Ltd.

207

Lindholm, K. J. (1992). Two-way bilingual/immersion education: Theory, conceptual issues, and pedagogical implications. In R.V. Padilla, & A.H. Benavides (Eds.). Critical perspectives on bilingual education research. Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe.

Lindholm, K. J. & Fairchild, H.H. (1990). Evaluation of an elementary school bilingual immersion program. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez. Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Madriz, E, (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Mace-Matluck, B.J. (1990). The effective schools movement: Implications for Title VII and bilingual education projects. In M.E. Brisk. Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Malakoff, M. & Hakuta, K. (1990), History of language minority education in the United States. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez. Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Map of Official Languages. SA. From: http://www.google.com/search?q=Map+of+official+languages+of+South+Africa&rlz. Retrieved May 31, 2015.

Marian, V. and Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum, 13.

Marjorie, L. (1982). Language policy and oppression in South Africa. CSQ Issue: Poisons and peripheral people: Industrial hazards. 6 (1). From https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/southafrica/language-policy-and-oppression-south-africa. Retrieved December 3, 2015.

Martin, P. (2003). Bilingual encounters in the classroom. In J-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, and L.Wei. Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

Mati, X. (2004). Using code switching as a strategy for bilingual education in the classroom. 21st Annual AEAA Conference on Code switching As a Strategy for Education

Mbatha, T., & Pluddemann, P. (2004). The status of isiXhosa as an additional language in selected Cape Town secondary schools. PRAESA Occasional Papers, 18, 1 – 27.

McClellan, E., Macqueen, K.M., & Neidig, J.L. (2003). Beyond the qualitative interview: Data preparation and transcription. Field Methods, 15 (1). 63 - 84.

McNelly, C. A. (2014). Language learning perspectives and experiences of stakeholders in the community of Flowers Bay, Roatan, Honduras. Dissertation.

Morse, J.N., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

208

Myers-Scotton, C. (2003). Code-switching: Evidence of both flexibility and rigidity in language. Martin, P. (2003). Bilingual encounters in the classroom. In J-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, and L.Wei. Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (nd). What teachers should know and be able to do. From http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/what_teachers_should_know.pdf Retrieved November 18, 2015.

News24.com. From http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Worst-performing-Eastern- Cape-moving-ahead-20130103 Retrieved October 8, 2013

Nieto, D. (2009). A brief history of bilingual education in the United States. Perspectives on urban education, 61 -72.

Omoniyi, T. (2007). Alternative contexts of language policy and planning in Sub-Saharan Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (3), 533 – 549.

Opoku-Amankwa, K. (2009). English-only language-in-education policy in multilingual classrooms in Ghana. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22 (2), 121–135.

Ovando, Carlos J., & McLaren, Peter (Eds.) (2000). The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the crossfire. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Parmon, M. (2010). Educating immigrant children: Bilingualism in America’s schools. Social Sciences Journal, 10 (1), 66 – 69.

Plüddemann, P. (2010). Home-language based bilingual education: Towards a learner-centered language typology of primary schools in South Africa. PRAESA Occasional Papers, 32.

Plüddemann, P., Braam, D., October, M., & Wababa, Z. (2005). Dual-medium and parallel- medium schooling in the Western Cape: from default to design. PRAESA Occasional Papers, 17, 1 – 47.

Prah, K.K (2009). Mother-tongue education in Africa for emancipation and development: Towards the intellectualization of African languages. In B. Brock-Utne, & I. Skattum. Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford (U.K.): Symposium Books

Qorro, M. (1999). Prospects of mother tongue and bilingual education in Africa: With special reference to Tanzania. Conference on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education: Myths, Realities, and Consensus.

Qorro, M.A.S. (2009). Parents’ and policy makers’ insistence on foreign languages as media of education in Africa: Restricting access to quality education – for whose benefit? In B. Brock-Utne & I. Skattum. Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.

209

Rabenoro, I. (2009). National language teaching as a tool for Malagasy learners’ integration into globalization. In B. Brock-Utne, & I. Skattum. Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.

Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.

Ramadiro, B. (2009). Magic Classroom: Giving teaching and learning room to thrive in rural primary education. East London: Nelson Mandela Institute for Education and Rural Development. Research, 17 (10), 1316 – 1328.

Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the ‘language-as-resource discourse’ in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (3), 348-368.

Ricento, T.K., & and Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: the Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15 – 34.

Saunders, W., O’Brien, G., & McLean, J. (1999). Successful transition into mainstream English: Effective strategies for studying literature. Center for Research on Education, diversity and Excellence.

Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Strengthening the transition in transitional bilingual education. In D. Christian, and F. Genesee (Eds.). Bilingual Education. Alexandria, VA:

Setati, M. & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational studies in mathematics, 43, 243 – 269.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Kentucky: Taylor and Francis.

Simango, S. (2009). Weaning Africa from Europe: Toward a mother-tongue education policy in Southern Africa. In B. Brock-Utne, & I. Skattum. Languages and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.

Snow, C. (1990). Rationales for native language instruction: Evidence from research. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez. Bilingual education: Issues and strategies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Soga, J.H. (1931). The AmaXhosa: Life and Customs. Alice (Eastern Cape): Lovedale Press.

210

Stroud, C. (1999). Portuguese as ideology and politics in Mozambique: Semiotic (re)constructions) of a postcolony. In J. Blommaert (Ed.). Language ideological debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Taylor, S.G. (2002). Multilingual societies and planned linguistic change: new language-in- education programs in Estonia and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 46 (3), 313 - 338.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Incorporated (TESOL)teachers to support ‘bridging’ in Papua new Guinea. Language and Education, 25 (3), 221 – 239.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, No. 108 of 1996, ss 5 (a) and (b). From http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/a108-96.pdf. Retrieved May 17, 2013.

Throop, R. (2007). Teachers as language planners: Incorporating language policy planning into teacher education and classroom practice. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 22 (2), 45-65.

Thwala, N. (2006). Reflections on the mother tongue: In nursery, primary, and secondary education. AllSASchools.com. Retrieved March 10, 2009.

Topor, D.R., Keane, S.P., Shelton, T.L., and Calkins, S.D. (2010). Parent involvement and student academic performance: A multiple mediational analysis. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 38 (3), 183-197.

Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222 – 1235.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Young, D. (1995). The role and status of the first language in education in a multilingual society. In K. Heugh, A. Siegrühn, & P. Plüddemann (Eds.). Multilingual education for South Africa. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Zimmerman, L. W. (2010). ESL, EFL, and Bilingual Education: Exploring historical, sociocultural, linguistic, and instructional foundations. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

211

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Buyiswa Mavis Mini did her first degree at the University of Fort Hare, Alice, Eastern

Cape, South Africa. She joined the university after passing matric with a first class and receiving a Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd. award for the first class pass. At Fort Hare University she majored in African languages, history, and Afrikaans-Nederlands, with distinction in the first major. During her education at Fort Hare, she received several bursaries. In her second year she received a prize from the Dutch Ambassador for the best Afrikaans-Nederlands student of the year. During her teacher education year she achieved a distinction in Afrikaans method of teaching. After two years as a young teacher at Mt Arthur Girls High School at Lady Frere,

Eastern Cape, she was offered a job as a junior lecturer at the University of Fort Hare, teaching

African languages. This career took her through the honors’ degree in African languages at Fort

Hare and master’s degree in linguistics at Reading University, United Kingdom. Her linguistics and language expertise, as well as fourteen years’ experience as instructor in the Department of

African Languages, led to her appointment as Director, Editor-in-Chief, and associate professor

(equivalent to assistant professor in the U.S.) to the university’s lexicography unit, which was responsible for the compilation of the tri-volume, tri-lingual Greater Dictionary of isiXhosa. The dictionary consists of isiXhosa, English and Afrikaans columns that give comprehensive definitions of isiXhosa entries. The unit later became adopted by the Pan South African

Language Board of the new government of South Africa as the IsiXhosa National Lexicography

Unit (NLU), as one of the PanSALB’s language development structures. This was under the new multi-lingual language policy of the new democratic South Africa. At the University of Florida she has taught isiXhosa and isiZulu as foreign languages to UF’s students during fall and spring terms, and to US students from other universities in two types of intensive summer programs, namely the Summer Cooperative African Language Institute (SCALI, two times), and the

212

African Flagship Languages Initiative (AFLI, two times). Besides teaching, her AFLI experience includes serving once as a conversational assistant and twice as a home visit center for cultural immersion for students learning isiZulu. As a student in bilingual education she was recipient of the 2012-2013 Dr. Clemons Lester Hallman Fellowship award. She attained the Doctor of

Education degree in the ESOL-Bilingual-Bicultural Education program of the School of

Teaching and Learning, at the College of Education at the University of Florida, and graduated on December 18, 2015. Having missed the final submission clearance date due to formatting requirements, the actual awarding of the degree and the diploma (certificate) had to be the next graduation date, namely, April 28, 2016. Her research interests include language policy, bi-

/multilingual education, (socio-) linguistics, lexicography, second language acquisition, and

African language development including translation, terminology creation, and literature. All by the grace of the Lord.

213