Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Understanding language in education policy change and the generation of political priority for L1-based multilingual education: A six country cross-national analysis

Mon, March 30, 2:45 to 4:00pm, Hilton, Floor: Lobby Level - Tower 3, Golden Gate 7

Proposal

Issues related to the language(s) of instruction are relevant worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where the language used in schools often differs from the one most understood or spoken by much of the population. According to the World Bank (2021), an estimated 37% of students in these countries are taught in a language they do not understand—most in sub-Saharan Africa. This mismatch has been correlated to poorer educational attainment and inequities (van Pixteren, 2023).

In response, some countries have adopted L1-based bi-/multilingual education, whereby students begin learning in a language they understand before progressively acquiring an additional L2 or other language(s). Program designs vary, from early-exit to late-exit models and from subtractive to additive approaches. Others remain reluctant to integrate L1s into education systems or have reversed prior L1-based multilingual education policies.

This paper examines how political priority for L1-based multilingual education is generated and whether generalizable claims can be made through a six-country cross-national analysis. While numerous descriptive studies and emerging frameworks explore language-in-education policy change toward the inclusion of non-dominant L1s (e.g., Kosonen & Benson, 2021, on actors driving change), little is known about the causes of political prioritization, its absence, or reversal on national education reform agendas.
The six countries examined—Senegal, Mozambique, Mali, Kenya, Rwanda, and the Philippines—were part of the formerly USAID-funded Language of Instruction Transition in Education Systems (LITES) study. This research assessed the extent to which L1-based multilingual education is prioritized on national agendas and identified factors that facilitate or hinder such prioritization. This paper presents cross-national findings.

Methodologically, each case was first analyzed using causal process tracing, a qualitative method that triangulates multiple data sources (e.g., policy documents, stakeholder interviews) to identify causal mechanisms in agenda-setting. Data were coded according to Shiffman (2007) and Shiffman & Smith’s (2007) framework, which identifies 18 factors influencing the political prioritization of policies. These factors draw on leading theories from political science and policy analysis, and include the role of policy actors (entrepreneurs, civil society leaders, guiding institutions, transnational actors), policy framing, political context (e.g., policy windows), tractability, perceived implementation difficulty, and proofs of concept. After within-case analysis, all six cases were compared to identify possible generalizations about which factors enable or obstruct L1-based MLE’s political prioritization. Each factor was evaluated for its generalizability using a two-by-two table and set-theoretic logic, common in qualitative process tracing methods (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012).

In contexts where L1-based multilingual education failed to gain traction, the most common obstacles were: perceived implementation difficulties, competing education priorities (particularly L2 acquisition for economic and geopolitical purposes favoring L2 immersion), and intractability—especially among elites. In contrast, in countries that prioritized L1-based multilingual education, the most consistent enablers were: (1) strong actor power within and outside government, (2) accumulated proofs of concept over time, and (3) effective policy framing. Together, these factors demonstrated the feasibility, potential, and desirability of L1-based multilingual education.

Authors