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

Group Submission Type: Highlighted Paper Session

Proposal

Scholars in applied linguistics and language policy and planning have long recognized the intrinsically political nature of language, language planning, and language in education policy (May, 2008). Scholars have consistently lamented the limited engagement of Language Policy and Planning with the fields of other social science, including political science and the theoretical and methodological tools of political science and policy analysis (Fishman, 1992; Tollefson, 2008; Williams, 1992). The primary theoretical contributions to the literature have been grounded in critical theory, post-colonial theory, and postmodern theory and have focused on explaining the power and spread of English as a global language, the devaluation of local languages and ways of knowing, and the ideological and discursive reasons for the limited embrace of local languages as legacies of colonialism (e.g. Ruiz, 1984; Phillipson, 1992; 2013; Pennycook, 1994; 2001; 2002; Tollefson, 2006; 2012; May, 2008; Ricento, 2006; Hornberger, 2006; 2010).

But far less is understood about why some post-colonial countries have embraced local language educational policies while others have not, why some have changed the language in education policy multiple times in recent decades, or how language in education policy changes. The prevailing theories fail to offer explanatory traction in interpreting these divergent policy and political trajectories in post-colonial contexts or the process of policy change. While some scholars have begun to investigate these problems, providing novel frameworks to begin to understand and map change processes (López, 2008; Kosonen & Benson, 2021), this scholarship has not yet integrated with or availed itself of the considerable conceptual, theoretical, and methodological potential contributions of political science and policy analysis scholarship.

This panel aims to enrich the analysis of language-in-education policy change by incorporating new theoretical and methodological approaches from these disciplines. Such analysis is helpful to understand the enabling and hindering factors for the political prioritization and change of different policies. We hope that these contributions will both foster greater understanding of the political mechanisms of policy change for language-in-education as well as offer new conceptual and methodological terrain for the fields of language policy and planning, applied linguistics, and international and comparative education.

This panel considers the extent to which L1-based ME policies are politically prioritized, sustained, and locally appropriated. On this panel, we will mainly focus on the aspects of political prioritization leading to national policy change, resilience, and local appropriation in schools. Papers draw on case studies from Senegal, Rwanda, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Mali to trace the processes shaping the political prioritization, policy change, policy enactment, and take-up, appropriation or resistance to the language of instruction policies in each context. These factors, in turn, influence the sustainability and quality implementation of language-in-education policies.

Political prioritization is analyzed using causal process tracing, a within-case method that examines the processes and mechanisms that link causes and effects based upon theory testing, and can then employ cross-case analysis (Bennet et al., 2019; Blatter & Haverland, 2014 Fairfield & Charman, 2017; 2019; Shiffman, 2007). This approach uncovers the social and political processes, along with the historical and economic contexts, that lead to a policy gaining attention and support within decision-making and implementation spaces, ultimately influencing policy change and enactment (or lack thereof). It draws upon a framework based upon leading theories from political science and policy analysis literature on agenda setting (Shiffman, 2007; Shiffman and Smith, 2007), such as the role of policy actors such as entrepreneurs, civil society, guiding institutions, and transnational actors, policy framing, issues of tractability and perceived implementation difficulty, and the presence or absence of proofs of concept.

The key question across most contexts is why L1s are integrated into some education systems as languages of instruction (e.g. Senegal, Mozambique, Mali, Ethiopia) and are not in other systems (e.g. Kenya), or why states adopt and abandon such L1-based multilingual education policies (e.g. Rwanda, the Philippines). Preliminary findings point to (perceived) implementation difficulty of L1-based multilingual education (ME), competing education priorities (L2 acquisition for economic and geopolitical drivers push towards L2 immersion policies), and intractability (especially among elites) as key barriers across most contexts, while the combination of actor power, accumulated proofs of concept, and effective policy framing have been the most consistent and potent factors in overcoming these barriers and demonstrating the feasibility, potential, and desirability of L1-based multilingual education models in LMICs.

Policy appropriation is analyzed, using both qualitative and quantitative data, at the school level, focusing on stakeholders’ attitudes and self-efficacy (i.e., teachers, students, administrators, parents) and how they “interpret and ‘take in’ elements of policy, incorporating these discursive resources into their own schemes of interest, motivation, and action” (Levinson, Winstead, and Sutton, 2020, p. 367). Preliminary findings emphasize the central importance of fostering adequate conditions in schools for L1-based multilingual education as critical for influencing teacher behavior and decision-making. Rather than teachers’ or parents’ attitudes and biases primarily influencing appropriation and take-up, we find that the presence or absence of books in the appropriate languages and the degree to which teachers are trained are primary drivers of how policy is enacted by teachers at a local level. Extrinsic incentives, like the timing and language of national exams, are also powerful influences. Both parents’ and teachers’ biases against L1s appear to have far more marginal roles in explaining local behaviors than has previously been argued (e.g. Djite, 2008; Abedgija, 1994; Trudell, 2007; Trudell & Piper, 2014). Finally, there is evidence that such skeptical attitudes are malleable and change when parents and teachers see L1-based multilingual education effectively implemented in their schools.

Sub Unit

• Language Issues SIG

Chair

• TJ D'Agostino, University of Notre Dame

Individual Presentations

• Understanding language in education policy change and the political prioritization of L1-based multilingual education in Africa - Erina Iwasaki, University of Notre Dame-Pulte Institute of Global Development; TJ D'Agostino, University of Notre Dame

• What would it take? Exploring sustained language in education policy and implementation in Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda and Senegal - Barbara Trudell, SIL Africa Learning & Development

• Agency and structures shaping appropriation of language in education policy - a cross country synthesis from the LITES qualitative study - Feliciano Chimbutane, Eduardo Mondlane University; Caroline Freeman, University of Notre Dame; TJ D'Agostino, University of Notre Dame

• Exploring factors influencing the pedagogical and linguistic choices of teachers in multilingual classrooms: a cross-country quantitative analysis - Pierre de Galbert, Brown University

Discussant

• Carolyn J Benson, MLE International