Navigating the power of colonial language legacies - understanding multilingual education policy prioritization

• In Event: Highlighted Session: The power of language and languages of power: understanding language of instruction policy change across six postcolonial contexts

Proposal

Policies surrounding language in schools are influenced by social, political, and economic forces that affect policy design and implementation (Trudell & Piper, 2014; World Bank, 2021). Stakeholders prioritize certain languages for economic, social, or cultural reasons. Language policies are articulated to some degree, but not prioritized, impeding implementation, uptake, and impact (Benson, 2004; Clegg & Simpson, 2017; Trudell & Piper, 2014).


This study examined the following questions: To what extent is multilingual education a priority on the national policy agenda? and What factors have facilitated or obstructed its political prioritization?


To address these, the study examines the degree of policy prioritization and the antecedents that explain that degree of policy prioritization. We draw upon criteria identified by Shiffman (2007) to evaluate the level of prioritization in each context. The study then employs causal process tracing, a rigorous, qualitative approach to theory-testing. It tests a theorized set of factors that influence policy prioritization in LMICs derived from the work of Shiffman (2007), and adapted to language in education policy. Eighteen factors falling within the following four categories were tested: actor power, idea framing, political contexts, and issue characteristics. Data was collected from a set of approximately 15 key informant interviews per country context (over 90 total) and a robust review of the research and grey literature and policy documents in each context.


Preliminary findings point to the following key findings:


Prioritization of ME policies vary widely across contexts.


Prioritization of ME policies has been dynamic in most contexts, rising and falling in different countries over the last 20 years.


Diversity in the outcomes of interest (i.e. ME policy prioritization) across the study sample enables rich inquiry into the factors explaining this variance. Major factors included:


Issue characteristics
Proofs of concept - Evidence from evaluations of pilot ME programs was determinative in driving ME policy prioritization in Senegal and Mozambique, which had the highest prioritization, while the absence of strong evidence inhibited prioritization in other countries.
Implementation difficulty - Implementation difficulty and complexity was a major barrier in many contexts, and was the driver of plummeting prioritization in the Philippines.


Actor Power
Policy / advocacy community cohesion and network strength - Countries with weaker ME advocacy networks tended to have less prioritization (e.g. Rwanda, Kenya), while those with strong networks tended to have more traction (e.g. Senegal, Mozambique).
Transnational influence - Transitional influence was a key factor in each country, generally increasing prioritization of ME approaches through norm setting, funding, and technical assistance.


Political contexts
Competing education priorities - Strong desire for L2 exposure - especially from elites - was a political barrier to additive ME approaches. This was most apparent in Rwanda, but was a driver of recent shifts in the Philippines and a political barrier in most contexts.


Idea Framing
External framing - Framing of L1 instruction as an indigenous right or a (counterintuitive) pedagogical benefit to L2 mastery had limited impact. But Mozambique and Senegal had success framing the problem as bad language policy driving a school drop-out crisis.

Author

• Michael Tusiime, University of Rwanda