Understanding language in education policy change and the political prioritization of L1-based multilingual education in Africa

• In Event: Highlighted Session: New theoretical and empirical contributions to the politics of language in education: Understanding policy change and local appropriation in Africa

Proposal

Issues related to language(s) of instruction remain relevant in many countries worldwide, particularly on the African continent, where nations are adopting new language-in-education policies. Some countries have opted for L1-based bi-/multilingual education, where students first learn in a language they understand before progressively acquiring an additional L2 or Lx. Adopted models and language progression plans vary across countries, ranging from early exit to late exit models, as well as from subtractive to additive approaches. Others have been reluctant to integrate L1s into their educational systems or are abandoning L1-based multilingual education altogether.

While there are numerous descriptive studies and emerging frameworks related to language-in-education policy change toward the inclusion of non-dominant L1s (e.g., Kosonen & Benson (2021) on actors involved in the change), little is known about how L1-based multilingual education becomes a political priority (or not) for educational reform. One of the aims of the USAID-funded Language of Instruction Transition in Education Systems (LITES) cross-national study is to identify to what extent L1-based multilingual education is a priority on national policy agendas and what factors have facilitated or obstructed its political prioritization. The study covers six country cases: Senegal, Mozambique, Mali, Kenya, Rwanda, and the Philippines. This paper primarily focuses on the African country cases.

Each case is analyzed using causal process tracing, a qualitative case study methodology that triangulates different sources of data (e.g., policy papers, key informant interviews with stakeholders) to identify patterns or sequences of causality in agenda-setting. Data was coded according to Shiffman (2007) and Shiffman & Smith’s (2007) theoretical framework, which identifies 14 factors that generate the political priority of policies on national policy agendas. Shiffman (2007) and Shiffman & Smith’s (2007) theoretical framework draws upon leading theories from political science and policy analysis literature on agenda-setting. The 14 factors range from the role of policy actors such as entrepreneurs, civil society leaders, guiding institutions, and transnational actors, to policy framing, political contexts (e.g. policy windows), issues of tractability, perceived implementation difficulty, and the presence or absence of proofs of concept. This approach also unveils, in each case study, the social, political, economic and historical contexts that lead to L1-based multilingual education policy gaining attention and support (or not) within decision-making and implementation spaces, ultimately influencing policy change and enactment (or lack thereof).

In contexts where L1-based multilingual education does not gain enough traction, our findings identify the following key obstacles: perceived implementation difficulties of L1-based multilingual education, competing education priorities (L2 acquisition for economic and geopolitical drivers pushing towards L2 immersion policies), and intractability (especially among elites). Meanwhile, in countries that prioritize L1-based multilingual education, the most consistent and potent factors in overcoming these negative perceptions were the combination of actor power within and outside governmental institutions, accumulated proofs of concept over time, and effective policy framing. These factors demonstrate the feasibility, potential, and desirability of L1-based multilingual education.

Authors

• Erina Iwasaki, University of Notre Dame-Pulte Institute of Global Development

• TJ D'Agostino, University of Notre Dame