When I When I addressed assembly and did tell them the Easter story in isiZulu, I got comments like this is an English school and I should tell
4.2.2.2 Acceptance of the need to change
Despite large-scale resistance to school language change from educators in all four schools, there was some acceptance of the need to engage in language policy and practice change. Douglas (1997) relates resistance to change to inertia in the material world.
Douglas (1997) argues that in terms of physics, application of energy is required to move inert material but to overcome human resistance there has to be a relatively rational need to commit energy to change, a need that is assessed on the basis of a series of priorities.
He adds that such an assessment is based upon the assumed costs and rewards that such a use of energy would involve. An interrogation of the data revealed that initial resistance
to school language change may have been eroded by certain individuals in all four schools counting up the costs and rewards of engaging in change and making a rational decision to support change on the basis that the rewards of engaging in change outweighed the costs. This part of the analysis in section two explores educator acceptance of the need to change arising out of recognition of the greater rewards of embracing school language change that promotes multilingual education.
In as much as Agent L contended that there was resistance to change from the principal and educators of Bo Peep Primary, there was nevertheless some acceptance of the need to engage in language transformation from the principal. As was evident in the discussion on school language policy revision earlier in the analysis, the principal supported the elevation of isiZulu to 1st additional language above Afrikaans, which is currently the 1st additional language at the school. She also indicated: “I am requesting that the department send me a teacher in addition to the PPN who will handle the isiZulu.” If a vacancy was created through an increase in the school‟s PPN, she said, “I would definitely go for an isiZulu teacher.” She also admitted the value of learners being proficient in isiZulu by asserting: “They are going to be well equipped for the job market…No matter what area you look at, if you are in KZN you need that. Whether it is social services, in the marketplace whether you are going into a shop, on a construction site you need that isiZulu.”
It is evident that initial resistance from the principal to school language change was eroded by a rational process of counting up the costs and rewards of elevating isiZulu to 1st additional language and eventually conceding that there would be very tangible rewards for the learners acquiring proficiency in isiZulu together with English. Her conclusion of the benefits of isiZulu for the learners was evidently based on market- driven forces. While Kamwangamalu (2000) argues with sound justification that African languages lack linguistic capital, the view held by this principal and other participants in this study of the value of isiZulu in the marketplace is equally sound. Such a view is echoed by Alexander (2006) who speaks of the economic value of African languages.
Citing the preliminary research findings of a colleague at PRAESA, Alexander (2006)
contends that despite the negative attitudes to African languages, there are definite moves by major players such as the banking sector, parastatal communications firms and the public administration towards increased use of African languages at the workplace, in their administration and especially at the interface with customers.
Notwithstanding the evidence of transformation at Bo Peep Primary, Agent L asserted that the offering of isiZulu at Bo Peep Primary was merely tokenism and not a genuine attempt at transformation as captured in the following response:
Right now we are offering isiZulu to the pupils. But it‟s the language to the pupils to just learn the basics. We are not… I am telling you the school is… contradicting what the principal is saying, the school is not embracing these principles (principles underpinning the LiEP), if it was embracing these principles I would have been seeing notices in both English and isiZulu. I did not see notices in Zulu…You see by having one teacher teaching isiZulu all they are doing is, I haven‟t been for these lessons, I haven‟t physically been for these isiZulu lessons, all they are doing is, they are teaching very basic Zulu, very basic, basic in the way they pronounce A, B, C…obviously it‟s an English A but the way they do it is different. IsiZulu is a start but they have not done more than that in this school, I am telling you, whether you like it or not, in this school the heavy shift has not been to actually encourage isiZulu to the maximum.
Agent L‟s assertions that the principal‟s portrayal of the school as transforming linguistically was inaccurate and his comments (captured in a response earlier in this section of the analysis) that the principal “camouflage(d) it in such a manner to create the impression that the school is too good” raises the possibility that the principal was engaging in what is termed strategic mimicry30 and not real change. However, the principal was instrumental in the Zulu teacher‟s appointment and had implied that language transformation at the school was still exploratory. The principal and the Zulu
30 Strategic mimicry was evident in the behaviour of educators in studies conducted locally and internationally where they mimicked change but did not engage in real change. Faced with policy and curriculum reform that were alien to their own philosophical and cultural understanding of teaching and learning, South African educators teaching in rural schools played along with the policy in an attempt to appear competent and look modern (Mattson 2000, Mattson &
Harley 2003). Fullan (2000) found that “there was great pressure and incentives to become innovative and this resulted in many schools adopting reforms for which they did not have the capacity(individual or organizational) to put into practice. Thus innovations were adopted on the surface with some of the language and structures becoming altered, but not the practice of teaching.”
language teacher conceded that isiZulu was being offered at an elementary level because it had second additional language status and therefore had been allocated ½ hour of the 7 hours per week allocation for languages on the timetable. English as 1st language was allocated 4½ hours and Afrikaans as 1st additional was allocated 2 hours. However, an elevation in the status of isiZulu in the future should see an appreciable increase in the standard of isiZulu offered at the school.
At Mulberry Primary there were some educators who were receptive to attempts by Agent S to transform their practice. Agent S had exposed them to the value of using bilingual worksheets and harnessing the benefits of pupil-pupil CS in group work and pair work. Skutnabb-Kangas & Garcia (1995) affirm the value of learner-learner collaboration in pairwork and group work comprising linguistically homogeneous pairs or groups containing more than one isiZulu or English-speaking learner. In contemplating the characteristics of a sound multilingual language policy as part of their guiding principles for multilingual education, Skutnabb-Kangas & Garcia (1995) advise that when the L2 is used as a medium of instruction, linguistically heterogeneous groups can be arranged, but they should always contain more than one child from each language group in order to make translations possible when needed. They add that in this way, both input and output in the first and second language can be realistically and authentically produced.
To initiate the educators into language practice change Agent S and Miss T, a Zulu- speaking admin. assistant at Mulberry Primary, assisted them in preparing bilingual worksheets. While her colleagues were hampered by their inability to speak isiZulu, Agent S felt encouraged when she noticed that the Afrikaans teacher “used (multilingual) worksheets and … was using multilingual teaching (methods)”.
The receptiveness of some educators at Mulberry Primary to the value of using multilingual teaching/learning strategies and learning and teaching support materials (LTSMs) suggest that these educators have also become aware of the greater rewards than costs in attempting to transform language practices in their classes. However, only if
they genuinely commit themselves to changing their own linguistic practices through learning to speak isiZulu will the change that has begun in their own classes be sustained.
In this respect Douglas (1997) asserts that true change can only be brought by the individual him or herself and while help and guidance may assist the change process, change will scarcely be durable unless the individual commits initial energy to the process. Fullan & Hargreaves (1991) reinforce this view by positing as one of the guidelines for action consistent with the conception of the professional teacher the commitment to continuous improvement and perpetual learning.
At Agent G and R‟s schools initial resistance to school language change, particularly a change in racial composition of the staff to meet the needs of language transformation, was reportedly breaking down as is evident from the following responses from Agents G and R respectively:
I think in any work situation when there is a change of the type we are experiencing now then there would be resistance because the whole culture of the staff will have to change but I must tell you again that as we brought in teachers one by one there was acceptance of these teachers. Initially, like in any work situation there was resistance.
Now I think it‟s hitting them, the fact that they need to change,