2.7 The unique South African context
2.7.5 Explaining the performance gap
2.7.5.2 Language factors
In view of the findings on widespread discrimination, the Soudien report recommends the introduction of staff development programmes at institutions of higher learning with a view to sensitising faculty to the diverse learning needs of their multicultural student base. This recommendation is in line with international precedents that argue the value of such initiatives, such as the example of the Netherlands, where such interventions have been effective in helping to narrow the race based academic achievement gap (Rijkschroeff et al., 2005). Other recommendations include a gender sensitisation intervention and a programme aimed at ensuring a culturally sensitive and appropriate curriculum (Department of Education, 2008).
Given the findings of studies on the importance of a sense of affinity and, conversely, the negative impact of discrimination in the multicultural classroom, to students’ learning experiences and achievement (McCroskey and Richmond, 1992, Obiakor, 2004, Wilson, 2006, Horsford, 2010), this state of lingering racism is extremely concerning and provides insights into the possible reasons for the persisting race related academic achievement gap.
Official Language Home Language Speakers Home Language Percentages
Afrikaans 5,983,420 13.35%
English 3,673,206 8.2%
isiNdebele 711,825 1.59%
Sesotho sa Leboa 4,208,974 9.39%
Sesotho 3,555,192 7.93%
SiSwati 1,194,433 2.66%
Setswana 3,677,010 8.2%
Xitsonga 1,992,201 4.44%
Tshivenda 1,021,761 2.28%
isiXhosa 7,907,149 17.64%
isiZulu 10,677,315 23.82%
Other 217,291 0.48%
TOTAL 44,819,777 100%
Table 2-10 South Africa’s language landscape (Source: Statistics South Africa (2001); De Wet and Wolhuter (2009))
The reaction of the Black community was strong, not only to the use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction, but also to the use of home languages. These communities saw the language policies as an attempt to perpetuate segregation (including intra-racial language-based divisions) and to disempower Blacks economically and educationally. This discontent with educational and language policy led to the 1976 uprisings and the subsequent scrapping of Afrikaans and African languages as a compulsory medium of instruction. Although home language instruction still predominated in the early school years, by 1978 more than 96% of Black learners in South Africa were taught through the medium of English from Standard 5 onwards.
De Wet et al. (2009) cite a number of language policy related milestones on the road to South Africa’s educational transformation, including the National Forum in 1985 and the Harare Language Workshop of 1990 that reinforced resistance to Afrikaans, emphasised the importance of English and the need to defend the value of African languages in education. More recently, the South African
Schools Act and the National Education Policy, both of 1996, reiterated the right of all learners to education in their language of choice. In 2001, the Department of Education recommitted to the principle of multilingualism, stating in its report entitled “Education in South Africa: Achievements since 1994”: “Speaking the language of other people not only facilitates meaningful communication, but also builds openness and respect as barriers are broken down and new meanings are explored. We are committed to providing an initial grounding in mother-tongue education. We are considering ways to increase second-language learning. Given the historical onus on Black learners to learn English and Afrikaans, it is reciprocally important now that non-African learners acquire at least one African language. Multilingualism must be a more central educational requirement, particularly for learners entering the fields of education, welfare and health.” (Department of Education, 2001:31).
De Wet et al. (2009) suggest that the ideal of multilingualism and African language renaissance has not translated into implementation on the ground for various reasons including the dominance of English as social, political and commercial language of choice, ignorance about the value of home language instruction and the fear that use of African languages will cause divisions. Furthermore, they are of the opinion that the negative legacy of the Bantu Education Act of 1953 diminishes the possibility that Black communities will embrace the government’s drive for Black languages to resume their place in education, especially while Black languages are increasingly sidelined in favour of English in all arenas of South African society, including politics and industry. As a consequence, language use in education has not changed significantly since 1994. Learners are still taught primarily in English or Afrikaans. Multilingualism remains an ideal and English has strengthened its position as de facto language of education (De Wet and Wolhuter, 2009).
Howie et al. consider the impact of multilingual policy on learner performance in their study entitled:
“The effect of multilingual policies on performance and progression in reading in South African primary schools” (Howie et al., 2008). The National Department of Education’s language policy is referred to in this study and specifically the policy that South African children should receive instruction at school in their home language until grade 3. The only exposure African language speakers have in the classroom to English or Afrikaans prior to grade 4 is when teachers choose to
‘code switch’ (i.e. switch between the African language that predominates and English or Afrikaans).
Although current government language policy advocates the use of home language from grade 1 to 12, the reality on the ground is that most schools switch the language of instruction to either English or Afrikaans at grade 4. As a result, about 80% of the nation’s learners are required to switch to a second language of instruction (English or Afrikaans) in grade 4 as this is the percentage of learners at this level whose home language is not English or Afrikaans. Verhoeven (1990) refers to the
linguistic challenges this second language learning environment creates, citing both inter-lingual learning problems as a result of mother tongue interference and intra-lingual issues related to the structure of the second language. Verhoeven cites difficulties with phonemic mapping, orthographic pattern recognition and direction recognition for learners who switch to a second language (Verhoeven, 1990, Howie et al., 2008, De Wet and Wolhuter, 2009).
Howie and her associates sought to investigate the levels of reading proficiency among learners for the language of reading instruction received to grade 3 and the relationship between performance in the test language and the home language of the learner. They found that in both grade 4 and 5 the mean score in reading for South African learners was significantly lower than the international mean scores, with the exception of grade 5 English home language learners who scored above the international average. Moreover, the results indicated that the largest disparity in performance was between English home language speakers and non-English home language speakers in the English language test. Learners whose home language was not English performed significantly worse than English home language learners on the English test (Howie et al., 2008). These results are disturbing since 80% of South African learners are instructed from Grade 4 and beyond in a second language (English or Afrikaans) and are clearly not proficient in their language of instruction.
In view of the foregoing, it would be remiss of any strategy aimed at redressing the educational disparities between the cultural groups in South Africa to ignore the role language has and continues to play in South African education.