South Africa is currently facing a serious problem: even though language research and the language policies reflect an appreciation of the importance of multilingual competence, classroom practices have generally become more monolingual, not multilingual (Agnihotri 1995). Unfortunately,
“diverse languages are seen as obstacles and sources of interference in the learning of the target language” and teachers seem to see the linguistic and cultural differences as deviations from the standard (Agnihotri 1995: 3).
Chick (2002) conducted a study in the Durban metropolitan area in which he investigated the extent to which six schools are promoting the multilingualism and multiculturalism advocated in the official language-in- education policy. He concentrated on six former white and Indian schools that have become more linguistically and culturally diverse since the demise of apartheid. Chick’s research (2002: 462) was particularly interested in “how discourses serve to construct, sustain and change institutional and societal structures” and he observed three pervasive discourses in the schools, namely, the English-only discourse, the decline-of-standards discourse and the one-at-a-time discourse. With regard to my research, his discussion of the English-only discourse is most relevant. Chick (2002) assumed that multicultural discourses would be pervasive if not yet dominant within the classrooms and yet what he found was that overwhelmingly participants were having to negotiate their identities within an English-only discourse. He found that the principals of the schools were not in favour of using Zulu or any other language other than English in the classrooms and that they justified their position by arguing that the schools were English-medium schools and that the L2 learners need English for economic advancement. Generally he found that the dominant discourses in the schools
Marginalize students who do not speak English as a first language and who do not share middle-class values and middle-class ways of expressing them. They tend to construct an identity for them as language deficient and/or rebellious and/or unmannerly. As such, they reinforce the
view of South African national identity as hegemonic, exclusive and conflicted that was constructed by the discriminatory policies of the past.
(Chick 2002: 476)
Furthermore, according to Heugh (2002) the commonsense notion that earlier and greater exposure to English coupled with the simultaneous decrease in the use of the L1 will result in better proficiency in English does not hold up to scientific research. There is copious evidence of the failure of most children who have plunged too quickly into English without strong support in the school for their home language (de Klerk 2002).
However, many parents still opt for a straight-for-English approach for their children and many heads of schools confirm their belief that the earlier the children enter the system, the better their chances of success. But the system is buckling under the pressure, since taking in non-English learners impacts heavily on English-medium schools, as educators are perforce required to work much harder to help these children succeed. Also, the balance between L1 and L2 English speakers is becoming problematic. In many English- medium schools, the L1 learners are out-numbered by the L2 learners and this is problematic since ‘successful’ immersion depends on the school consisting of more than 50% L1 English speakers (de Klerk 2002).
Language policies are not implemented in social and historical vacuums, so the language attitudes of South Africans also have to be taken into account when trying to implement policies. It is commonly believed that the best way to achieve proficiency in English is to be exposed to English as much as possible and the sooner the better. Furthermore, English is seen as a high status language, a necessity if you want to make it in this world (Luckett 1995). We need to recognize that it is these everyday attitudes that will govern the choices people make when they exercise their democratic right to determine what languages they will learn at school, and so additive bilingualism can only develop in social contexts where both languages (and their cultures) are valued and reinforced (Luckett 1995). The fact is that:
The current language policy does offer the best possible opportunity for those who do not have English as a first language, to learn it well enough to use it in institutions of higher education and for employment purposes in the mainstream economy. It most certainly does not prevent access to English, neither does it dilute or minimize learners’ opportunity to gain meaningful access to English.
Only those who do not understand how second languages are and can be learned with success will believe otherwise.
(Heugh 2002: 174)
Yet, the policy is not being implemented in schools. Why not?
One reason that has been put forward is that the parents of the children want English straight away and English only. Heugh (2002) claims that this is a myth and that there is “no scientific evidence to support the myth that the majority of parents want straight for or only English” (Heugh 2002: 183). She goes on to say that while there are some parents who do choose to send their children to English schools, this is the minority, not the majority. To illustrate this, Heugh (2002: 183) cites a national sociolinguistic survey that was conducted in 1999 by PANSALB. This research showed that at least 88% of parents favour the maintenance and development of the home language or the maintenance and development of the home language alongside a second language like English.
However, de Klerk’s study (2000 and 2002) (mentioned in section 2.4.4) showed that economically advantaged Xhosa-speaking parents generally have attempted to expose their children to English as early as possible, often by sending them to crèche or pre-school prior to the commencement of formal schooling. But her study does not contradict Heugh’s (2002) claims that the majority of parents are not going for English only, since these parents were members of the middle and upper classes. de Klerk (2000), found that among the informants in the study, the majority of parents are in fact opting for English only. The most common reason (26%) for choosing an English school was the need for a better education and a
more stable learning environment. Basically, they felt that the English schools offered more and better facilities and did not have the same problems as the black schools. The next most popular reason for choosing English (19%) was because English was seen as an international language and they wanted to prepare their children for the modern world. The other reasons included wanting to give the child better opportunities than the parents had had, and a sense that English would open doors to more jobs (de Klerk 2000). It is interesting to note, however, that generally parents had to take extra measures to improve their children’s linguistic competence, such as providing more reading material in English, extra lessons, speaking English more at home and so on.
In general, while the majority of those parents who were interviewed were happy with their choice, there were some that did have regrets. A number of parents mentioned that there had been social problems, such as a lack of integration at schools and ostracism from peers in the townships. Also, religion emerged as being problematic with the children resisting attempts to worship in Xhosa. A further interesting point is that a substantial number of the respondents (81% of the questionnaire respondents and 65% of the interviewees) reported that they believed that it was important to support and maintain the mother tongue (de Klerk 2002).
“Their principled support for Xhosa comes through strongly, and suggests that, had tuition and facilities in Xhosa schools been better, they might have preferred to keep them there and let them learn through their MT” (de Klerk 2002: 9).
Besides parental attitudes and desires, Probyn et al (2002) suggest some other reasons regarding the failure of implementation of the Language in Education Policy:
♦ Schools do not have knowledge of the policy.
♦ Schools do not clearly understand the extent of their powers and responsibilities.
♦ They have a lack of experience and expertise in developing their own policies (and this probably includes a lack of knowledge and
understanding regarding the nature of bilingualism and second language acquisition).
♦ They do not know what support (if any) the Department of Education will provide.
♦ Education department district officials, who might advise schools, lack knowledge of the LiEP.
♦ Furthermore, the introduction of the LiEP was overshadowed by the concurrent introduction of Curriculum 2005, and district officials and teachers were often too preoccupied and focused on curriculum implementation to attend to the LiEP.