In this section, I describe the approaches adopted by the DBE to facilitate the best practice for teaching English literacy to all learners in accordance to the Language-in-Education Policy (LiEP) of South Africa. Since the English literacy research field is huge, I will limit my review to what the scholars argue about LiEP and the teaching of EFAL at the FP, which is the focus of this study.
52
The South African School Act (SASA) (Act 84 of 1996) introduced the language-in-education Policy (LiEP) in terms of section 3(4) of the National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act 27 of 1996). The LiEP stresses multilingualism as an extension of cultural diversity and an integral part of building a non-racial South Africa. The key principle is to retain learners’ HL for learning and teaching, but to encourage learners to acquire additional languages for learning and teaching (Department of Education, 2003). In this regard, the DBE’s position is that of an additive approach, which entails the addition of extra languages while maintaining the learner’s HL. Both the HL and the FAL being acquired or learned are given equal emphasis.
The LiEP (1997) promotes additive multilingualism where all learners are expected to reach high levels of proficiency in at least two languages that is, their HL and one additional language. This means that competency in EFAL should be acquired while the HL is maintained and developed. Shifting from using HL to EFAL as the LoLT in Grade 4, where the learners are expected be proficient in reading or learning using EFAL, is a very difficult task (Fleisch, 2008; Fleisch & Schöer, 2014). To achieve this goal, the DBE explicitly states that the learners' HL should be used at the FP for learning and teaching to support literacy acquisition and growth amongst learners (Department of Basic Education, 2013b). However, the language-in- education policies to be adhered which consistently upholds the 11 official languages are yet to be achieved in the South African schools.
The current LiEP provides norms and standards for languages to be offered in South African public schools. According to this policy, English is offered as the “language of learning and teaching” (LoLT) and as a “subject” at the FP. The powers of determining a school’s LoLT are entrusted to the school governing body, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the South African Schools Act and any applicable provincial law (Department of Basic Education, 2011, p. 8). This gives the parents a chance to choose LoLT for their children, considering the practicability of the choice and in accordance with the laws of South Africa.
Therefore, the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) and the current Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) offer English language as Home Language (HL) or First Additional Language (EFAL) at the FP. Although beyond the scope of this study, a distinction needs to be made, amongst the complexity of schooling in South Africa, between ‘‘Home Language’’ (HL), ‘‘First Additional Language (FAL)’’ and ‘‘language of learning and
53
teaching” (LoLT). To offer a language as a HL assumes that the learners come to school able to speak and understand that language, and the teacher is expected to boost the basic proficiencies needed to develop and nurture literacy development in a formal environment (Mbatha, 2014). The subject English as First Additional language (EFAL) assumes that learners do not necessarily have any knowledge of English when they arrive at school. In additive bilingualism approach, the aim is for learners to first acquire language fluency and access the academic curriculum in their HL and when they are able to access instruction in English, the HL instruction is then phased out. Learners are then taught exclusively in English at Grade 4 meaning English is offered as “language of learning and teaching” (Mashiya, 2011).
The learners’ basic competencies of understanding and speaking are supposed to be developed and EFAL is supposed to build on the HL literacies, which learners acquire from their home context (Department of Basic Education, 2011).
However, scholars argue that although LoLT is a critical issue, even more critical is the quality of instruction offered, that is, the instructional models, programmes and strategies (Lenyai, 2011; Pretorius, 2014). That is to say, learners who fail to master reading and writing skills in their HL find the transition to English as a LoLT difficult. According to Lenyai (2011), we should be cautious on how additive bilingualism approaches are conceptualised in multilingual countries like South Africa. C. Nel and Adams (2014), argues that the South African education system is failing many EFAL learners who are experiencing “exclusion” as a result of the current implementation of the current LiEP. The majority of the country’s learners face the challenges of mastering academic and literacy skills (for example, reading, writing and spelling) in a language they have yet to fully acquire, placing them at a high risk for developing literacy learning problems (Pretorius & Spaull, 2016).
According to the South African National Education Policy, the learners should start their learning at school in their HL but recent research evidence shows that many schools choose teaching them in a LoLT, which is different from what the children speak (A. J. Hugo & Lenyai, 2013; Mashiya, 2011; Taylor et al., 2013). In other cases, parents may, and increasingly do, opt for English or Afrikaans as the LoLT, rather than the HL of the learners in some schools (Taylor et al, 2013, p. 31). This is acceptable, according to the South African Schools Act (84 of 1996), but for these learners, their HL does not necessarily correspond with the LoLT. For example, a Sesotho-speaking learner living in KwaZulu-Natal province may attend a school in
54
a township or rural area where the LoLT is isiZulu. In addition, Mashiya (2011) and Phindane (2014) argue that for the majority of these learners entering Grade 4, the LoLT switches again (for the second time). This implies that 30% of the learners at the FP, mostly black children, are taught in a second language which in most cases is English, which they hardly speak at home in some districts. Fleisch (2008) adds a further dimension, that learners as well as teachers in townships and rural areas experience problems with EFAL learning and teaching, because they are not learning in a communicative language context. They hardly ever hear or speak English in their own communities. These learners live in a world in which English is essentially a foreign language.