..
5.. r

" .ill‘lbz .
a .9. 3%.}...Luéwsmmmnfiflurfi
.‘ 1:...
hazfii 1.5.56; o

$5.51. 3.23.

. . . 3.43.

1

.
so 5 ad?
fawn. ..

z
. Ki
. . ...:..:r. u ..r

:Isn.§:T

x .19- 13...» iv. 1
x . L. i. .
IW:| I!!! ”It: in}:

u ‘4 31‘“

7'

511.2%”
.3155?“ . I
tubué {that . I
.14.... ‘fesfiuaqiufi!
3‘ ’Av‘“!-“
5....
1 “340.“? at; .
. ..
. .§MPQ_.§W
.hxflma ! n

3.1!}

.
I?

1...... ‘1
.dr, .flhu._in.voa>n.fl.9v
.In t.’ t I55)
. Itti? «(X31 5
59:12: .32.. at“);
x 1.....nuniaowu...’ ntatsisa..rr.i.rn
l 5 .5 . .
Isn‘t... f t.‘ I
$.5- J35:

‘0): [1"-
H921

MK.“ I‘dblb'l
Haunt: um... "nah.“ . 2...»
£3.31 5.1.x g}...~ra .51
on. 2.0.. I .
3‘ 3.4“ ‘0‘... .1: 1.. in?

It

.
{K
.051.
ll .. 5.1.9 it
.‘hrfloicf‘ih. I it.
‘1.- $903.?!

31"...

"filux‘ial

.rl C...

at: aunt‘- 1%...

.r VI); ’DV....I(.
l1!!!th§t§«|0‘tr .
. “will:

.3}!!!
'-

 

 

 

 

3.1...231u \}§.\.Y}:
. A gilgif 3:715!
3...“. it: :

 

 

 

 

 

.5.
.tvx
53.50.
.t
’AAs\I.¢‘l
It‘ll-T‘)‘
, (I
a ‘3 Il ya‘} . .
,l 3.. v: 5 ,. .“vvlh‘
{$5.5}... .2..."o|§\3l£.\d . [:5 . L.
si’vl‘.l’l‘lr\l#-be\.wlt.3 ‘.A‘i . .V
‘57.,A31... tlr . ‘ ‘

 

THESIS

 

" " LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN REIURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JUL2723
£41 9 0i

 

 

001,} 9 EOE

JAN 0 8 2007

 

FEB 2 6 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm W.“

 

THE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES OF HIGH SCHOOL
LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS IN THE MAFIKENG AND
VRYBURG DISTRICTS OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE, SOUTH
AFRICA

BY

Tumelontle Mildred Thiba

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

2000

ABSTRACT
THE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES OF HIGH SCHOOL
LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND PARENTS IN THE MAFIKENG AND
VRYBURG DISTRICTS OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE, SOUTH
AFRICA
BY
Tumelontle Mildred Thiba

This study investigated language attitudes and practices of high school
learners, teachers and parents in the North West Province, South Africa, in
relation to the new Language- in— Education Policy (LIEP). Seven high
schools in the Mafikeng and Vryburg Districts were selected for the study
based on the Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT) they offered prior
to the new LIEP. One hundred and seventy-one Ieamers, twenty-two
teachers, and twenty parents participated in this smdy.

A survey questionnaire was administered to the learners and teachers.
Parents were interviewed face-to-face to curb the problem of limited literacy.
The questionnaire focused on language preferences and reasons for
language preferences, and opinions on the new LIEP. Observations of
classrooms, extra-curricula and non-curricula activities were conducted.

The results of the study indicated that the majority of the participants
across school media preferred English both as a subject and as a LOLT. Two

main reasons given for this preference were that: 1) English is the most

commonly used language at school, in the Province and in the world, and 2)
competence in English enhances job opportunities. The language chosen by
most Ieamers for Assembly was English. An equal number of teachers chose
the Setswana-English, and Afrikaans-English combination for Assembly, and
most parents chose Setswana. English was the language chosen by most
Ieamers for letters to parents. Most teachers chose the Afrikaans-English
option, and for parents Setswana was the most preferred language. More
than half of the Ieamers who responded were supportive of the new LIEP, but
more teachers were non-supportive of the policy. Only three parents were
non-supportive of the new LIEP, the rest believed that it would work.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that there is an
overwhelming support for English as subject and as LOLT schools and
participants. The major reason for this preference is that English is
associated with economic privilege.

This study has implications for the education of high school youth in
South Africa, the sociolinguistic aspects of language in education in general,
and in South Africa in particular. Stakeholders in education need to be
educated about the pedagogic importance of mother tongue instruction.
Research into language in education policy must reflect the historical and
political issues affecting language choice and empowerment through
language. Finally, the government needs to re-commit itself to the realization
of the LIEP by making human and material resources available to schools to

meet the demands of stakeholders.

Copyright by
Tumelontle Mildred Thiba
2000

DEDICATION
. To the memory of my dearest mother, Gasekete Thiba, for her selfless
dedication to her family and her love for education. Robala ka khotso
‘MaTieho. To Papa Moeketsi Thiba, for all the sacrifices he made for me.
Doh and Punkie, I try to live our dream little brothers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank God for guiding me through this difficult journey of
academic pursuit.

My special thanks to Dr. Geneva Smithennan, my supervisor and
mentor. Thank you very much for your faith in me and for your firm but
dedicated support.

I am grateful to Dr. David Plank, for his patience in reading and
critiquing my work and for constant academic support. My sincere gratitude
goes to Dr. Denise Troutman for her extremely helpful advice on my writing,
thanks Dr. T.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Professor Susan Gass, for
making a great impact on my professional development, thank you Dr. Gass.

Darkey and Thandi Afrika, ke lebogile bonnaka, le ka moso, Mpho
Faith Tire, you are priceless, Ciambaka Mary Mugo and Austin Jackson,
asante sana. Thank you all for always being there when I needed you most.
Bro Tito, may you receive endless blessings for your generosity of spirit, I
owe my sanity to you.

Badimo ba ga Mokgoro, Kekesi, Tsatsi, Thiba, Ke lebogile Barolong le

Bakgatla ba Bagolo (Dedication to my ancestors).

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 2
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 19
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of Chapters 22
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 23

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES 52

Overview of Methodology 52
Design of Study 56
Research Sites 59
Research Sample- Parents 65
Research Sample- Teachers 67
Research Sample- Leamers 67
Classroom Observations 68
Extra-curricula Activities 69
Non-curricula Activities 70
Procedures 71
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 72
Languages as Subjects 73
Languages as LOLT’s 84
Language Preferences for Extra-curricula and Non-curricula 94
Activities
Opinions on the New LIEP 107
Classroom Observations 1 13

Summary of Findings 124

vii

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 127

Summary 127

Conclusions and Implications 133

Suggestions for Further Research 141
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Letter of Request 144

Appendix B: lnfonned Consent Form 145

Appendix C: Language in Education Survey 146

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 50

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Participants

Table 2. 1.a: Languages as Subjects Preferred: Learners
Table 2.1 .b: Languages as Subjects not Preferred: Learners
Table 2. 2: Languages as Subjects Preferred: Teachers
Table 2. 3: Languages as Subjects Preferred: Parents

Table 3. 1.a: Reasons for Preferring Languages as Subjects: Learners

Table 3. 1.b: Reasons for Languages not Preferred as Subjects: Learners

Table 3.2: Reasons for Preferring Languages as Subjects: Teachers
Table 3.3: Reasons for Preferring Languages: Parents

Table 4.1: LOLT’s Preferred: Learners

Table 4.2: LOLT’s Preferred: Teachers

Table 4.3: LOLT’s Preferred: Parents

Table 5.1: Reasons for Languages Preferred as LOLT’s: Learners
Table 5.2: Reasons for LOLT Preference: Teachers

Table 5.3: Reasons for LOLT Preference: Parents

Table 6.1 :Languages Preferred for Extra-curricula Activities: Learners,
Assembly

Table 6.1.b: Letters to Parents

Table 6.2.a: Languages Preferred for Extra-curricula and Non-curricula
Activities: Teachers, Assembly

Table 6.2.b: Letters to Parents

73
74

74

85
85
86

89
95

95

Table 6.3.a: Languages Preferred for Extra-curricula and Non-curricula
Activities: Parents, Assembly

Table 6. 3.b: Letters to Parents

Table 7. 1.a: Reasons for Preferred Languages: Learners, Assembly
Table 7. 1.b: Letters to Parents: Learners

Table 7.2.a: Reasons for Languages Preferred: Teachers, Assembly
Table 7.2.b: Letters to Parents: Teachers

Table 7.3.a: Reasons for Languages Preferred: Parents, Assembly
Table 7.3.b: Letters to Parents: Parents

Table 8: Opinions on LIEP

Table 9: Observed Teachers Per Subject

97
97
98
99
100
100
101
102
108
113

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
How different in function are African languages from any others
anywhere in the world? I would like to suggest that languages fulfill
similar functions wherever they are spoken. Through all my
schooling days, therefore, Xhosa, my language, had little or no
relevance to my education, except that when I pursued it to course
II at university I failed it. In South Africa it is estimated that 40 to 50
percent of the population is illiterate, and that the greater part of the
illiterates are women. I think it is here that the African languages
become particularly relevant, especially in adult education (Govan
Mbeki, 2000).

Mbeki’s words capture the current state of educational underdevelopment
in South Africa as a result of the undervaluing of mother tongue instruction. As
he states, African languages are relevant and necessary to address the high rate
of illiteracy in SOUIh Africa. The research literature from the UNESCO
declaration of mother tongue instruction in 1953 (Robinson 1994, p. 70) to work
by Prah (2000) and others in the 19903 clearly demonstrates that educational
development is facilitated when the Ieamer’s first language is used. Within this
framework, this study investigated language attitudes and practices of Ieamers,
teachers and parents in post-apartheid South Africa, specifimlly seven selected
schools in the North West Province. Because the South African language in
education situation is inextricable from the social and political history of racialized
conquest and domination in the country, it is necessary to explore these complex

factors to gain an understanding of the purpose of this study and the necessity
for such a study at this juncture in the history of South Africa.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

On April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first ever democratic elections
where all citizens, irrespective of race, voted for a new democratic government
after decades of white minority rule. These elections saw the demise of
apartheid, at least by law, and the birth of democracy. Apartheid was a system
of legalized racial discrimination, unique to South Africa, which was used by the
Afrikaner National Party government from 1948 to 1994 to oppress 36million
Africans, Coloreds and Indians, in the land of their birth. Prior to the elections,
the country was divided along four distinct racial lines, White, Black, Colored and
Indian. In what Smithennan (2000, p.319) calls 'Vemoerd’s blueprint for
apartheid,” the country was further divided into “homelands” or “Bantustans” for
different segments of its African population. Four of the homelands, Transkei,
Bophuthatswana, Venda, and Ciskei, were said to be “independent countries.”
The remaining six homelands were called 'self-goveming" territories (Omer—
Cooper 1994, p. 214). Citizenship in the homelands was determined by
language. For instance, the homeland that was designated for Setswana
speaking citizens, Batswana, was called Bophuthatswana.

The people who were chosen to head these Bantustans were first
language speakers of their linguistically determined homelands. Anybody else
who was not a mother tongue speaker of the designated language in a particular
homeland became a citizen nonetheless if the homeland found him or her in the

area. For instance, if a person whose mother tongue was Sesotho happened to

live in Bophuthatswana, that person automatically became a citizen of that
homeland, or else the individual had to seek permission to live and work there.
Herbert (1992, p. 4) captures this complex situation in this manner.

Language, has however, been used explicitly to define national citizenship

in Southern Africa. For example, the 1976 Status of Transkei Act

conferred automatic Transkeian citizenship (and automatic loss of South

African citizenship) upon all those who were registered in 1963 as a

consequence of the Transkei Self- Government Act (all black people of

Transkeian origin), as well as upon those born outside the Transkei whose

fathers were of Transkeian origin or who were born out of wedlock and

whose mothers were of Transkeian origin, and upon those who were not
otherwise defined as citizens but who spoke a language or dialect used by
the Xhosa or Sotho-speaking people of the Transkei.

Language has therefore always been a critical tool of the politics of control
in South Africa. The National Party government used it to promote apartheid and
to oppress Africans through its divide and rule strategies. The Homeland Act and
the Group Areas Act that separated South Africans on both racial and linguistic
lines were two examples of these strategies. Therefore, it is not surprising that in
the agenda for redressing the imbalances of the apartheid years, the African
National Congress (ANC) led govemment recognized the vital role language
would play in restructuring the new South Africa.

Homeland governments had two or three official languages, English and/
or Afrikaans, and a South African indigenous language that was used to mark
each homeland as a separate entity. For instance in Bophuthatswana, English,
Afrikaans and Setswana were official languages. However, the languages of the

courts, government and post primary education were still English and Afrikaans

since the homelands were controlled by the South African central government in

spite of their state of “independence.“ For instance, matriculation (grade twelve)
final examinations were all constructed by the government in Pretoria and sent to
all schools for African children, including homeland schools.

The irony of the evil of apartheid, however, is that indigenous languages
were developed in the homelands as a result of their official status. Of course,
this development happened by accident, not by design, in that the languages
were used to promote the idea of separateness and independence. Homeland
govemments developed and used indigenous languages alongside English and
Afrikaans. Further, the use of these languages in media, especially television
and radio, helped to facilitate the growth and development of these languages.
This positive step, however, did not stop the power of English as the language of
learning and teaching (LOLT), especially in post primary education, and as the
medium of government, law and commerce in the homelands. For example,
even if a magistrate were highly competent in a local language, court
promedings would be held in English or Afrikaans.

The study of language in education policy in South Africa cannot,
therefore, be separated from the historical context of political developments in
the entire country.

The evolution of the country’s language in education policy has occurred
in four phases: l) missionary education, 2) Bantu Education, 3) post-1976
uprisings, and 4) post-1994 all race elections. In the first three phases, the policy
was determined solely by the government of the day, and little or no recognition

was given to indigenous languages. The fourth phase marks a radical movement

away from the previous three policies with the articulation of the new language
policy that gives power and equity to all eleven official languages of the country,
nine of which are indigenous.

Very little is recorded in history books about pre-colonial education in
South Africa. This does not, however, mean that there was no structured
education than. Traditional schools such as initiation schools were a means of
transmitting knowledge from one generation to the other. For the purpose of this
study, the development of language in education policy will be restricted to
colonial and post-colonial South Africa. The arrival of missionaries in South Africa
in the eighteenth century marked the beginning of formal education for Africans.
The sole purpose of the missionaries was to convert Africans to Christianity
(Omar-Cooper 1994, p.39). Education was a secondary aim in the missionary
agenda. However, the role of mission schools in the formal education of Africans
cannot be underestimated, especially with reference to language policy.
Mabokela (2000, p.96) says this about the role of mission schools:

At the crux of the British agenda was the goal of Anglocising the Dutch in

the Cape Colony. This goal was accomplished by introducing English as

a medium of instruction in schools. The imposition of English in schools

sparked a long struggle for dominance between the Dutch and the British,

a struggle which still resonates in modern language debates in South

Africa. The British policy towards the education of Africans ...was on

Christianising Africans rather than edumting them.

Mission schools used English as an LOLT but also encouraged the use of

African languages as LOLT’s from at least the first to the fourth grade of
elementary school. English was introduced gradually as LOLT in what is referred

to in De Klerk (1995, p.56) as “additive bilingualism”. According to Ohly (1992,

p.51 ), the missionaries themselves did not consider African languages deficient
and therefore unequal to English. Rather, the failure of the mission schools to
promote and maintain the use of African languages in schools was caused by the
low political and social status of the indigenous languages. Roy-Campbell (2000,
p.257) states that the switch from mother tongue to English in missionary schools
created a distorted image of the superiority of English to indigenous languages.
She argues that:

This contributed to the association, in the minds of many Africans, of

English with education and opportunities for personal advancement. The

dual policy of promoting yet devaluing African languages by the colonial

administrations helped to shape attitudes towards the indigenous
languages, attitudes which persist to this day.

Brown (1992, p.80) quotes Memmi’s assertion that the bilingual approach
used by mission schools devalued the African languages. Brown calls this
'colonial bilingualism” because even if the missionaries recommended the use of
indigenous languages, they continued to use English as LOLT and placed a
higher value on English than they did on African languages. The language in
education policy for missionary schools in principle was that indigenous
languages could be used as LOLT’s. However, the schools used English as
LOLT in spite of this policy. Undoubtedly, the missionaries used English
because they wanted to promote the language. Further, job security for Africans,
for example, was guaranteed by their competence in English, not in African
languages. In her comparison of the language policy in the USA and the RSA
(Republic of South Africa), Smithennan (2000, p.318) asserts that:

While USA Blacks were stripped of their African languages RSA Blacks
were allowed to retain theirs. However, British colonial language policy

relegated these languages to low status by considering them “dialects”,

rather than languages, and by establishing a system of material rewards

for Africans who spoke English.
Therefore, the value of the indigenous languages was lowered by their lack of
economic power while the status and value of English was elevated at their
expense.

When the National Party assumed political power in 1948, the govemment
began to consolidate the apartheid principles of Hendrik Venrvoerd, the architect
of apartheid and the first prime minister of the Union of South Africa. The
National Party used apartheid to divide and rule South Africa for fifty-two years.
Vemoerd established different departments of education along racial lines. The
department that was created for Africans was called the Department of Bantu
Education. The purpose of this department was to plan a deliberately inferior
education for African children. The FAK (Federasie van Afrikaanse
Kultuurvereniginge — Federation of Union of Afrikaans Culture) articulated the
goal of Bantu Education in its recommendation that was subsequently adopted
by the Department of Bantu Education:

....any system of teaching and education of natives must be based on

these same principles (trusteeship, no equality, separation)... must be

grounded in the life- and world— view of the whites, most especially the

Boer nation as the senior white trustees of the native.... The mother-

tongue must be the basis for native education and teaching but.. the two

official languages must be taught as subjects because they are official

languages... (Mesthrie 1995, p.309)

Education, like all spheres of society, was divided along four distinct racial

lines, and each group was placed in a hierarchy with the white at the top,

followed by the Indian, then the Colored, and finally the African. Christie (1986,
p. 55) observes the following about the racial divisions of education in South
Afriw:

Under the apartheid system, patterns of educational inequality were

entrenched. Different education systems do not provide equal education

for different population registration groups. And the separate education
systems have also entrenched patterns of social class.

The Bantu Education Act of 1953 resulted in the massive closure of
mission schools and the resignation of talented African teachers. The Act
declared that all schools must register as government schools, therefore taking
away the power of the schools to make decisions on language policy matters.
The Act also made English and Afrikaans LOLT’s to be introduced in first grade
(Mesthrie 1995, p.310). The government also declared English and Afrikaans
LOLT’s in teacher training colleges (Herbert 1995, p.82) and in secondary
schools (Granville, et. al., 1998, p.260). African teachers refused to implement
the govemment’s language in education policy and resigned en masse to protest
the Bantu Education Act.

Protests by Afriwn teachers forced the government to relent and
introduce the use of African languages as LOLT’s for the first six years of school.
However, the use of English and Afrikaans as LOLT's continued after standard
four (grade six). The centralized examinations in standard five were in English or
Afrikaans and therefore the children could not cope with the transition from
mother tongue instruction to English and Afrikaans. As a result of this declining

performance in the education of African children, teachers protested against the

government and demanded that schools be given resources to deal with the

language issues (Hartshome 1995, p. 312). The government did not take the
teachers protestations seriously and insisted on the use of English and Afrikaans
as LOLT’s and did very little to promote the use of African languages as LOLT’s
in African schools beyond standard four. There was no effort to develop
materials in indigenous languages for post-standard four education then.

The government‘s insistence on dual LOLT’s of Afrikaans and English was
executed out of fear that if schools were to choose between the two, English
would be the option taken by African schools. According to Hartshorne,

" Because of a fear that Afrikaans would be given a second place, the
department ruled that both languages should be introduced at first year.” The
real language in education battle of the government in the 1960’s was between
English and Afrikaans, as Hartshome (1995, p.307) observes. This battle
continued throughout the different political phases of the country and seems
prevalent even today. Mabokela (2000, p. 96) attributes this persistent struggle
between English and Afrikaans to the imposition of English as a medium of
instruction from the years of British rule in the then Cape Colony. The author
also states that this battle continues to permeate debates on language policy and
planning in South Africa. The language in education competition between
Afrikaans and English is more political than pedagogical. The Ieamers, especially
African children, were caught up in the linguistic-political crossfire. Neither of the
two languages was their first language, but the government continued to force
schools to choose between English and Afrikaans and gave little, if any,

consideration to African languages.

In the years that followed the 1953 declaration of the Bantu Education Act,
African teachers began to protest intensively mainly through the African
Teachers Association of South Africa (ATASA) (Christie 1986, p. 55). The main
complaint against the government was the inferior education of African children
characterized by lack of human and material resources, and the continued use of
Afrikaans and English as the sole media of instruction in schools for African
children. Finally, in the middle of the 19703, just before the school uprisings of
1976, the government relaxed the dual English-Afrikaans LOLT policy and
allowed schools to choose between the two languages. In African schools,
however, the mal status of Afrikaans was unchanged since the Department of
Bantu Education was manned by conservative Afrikaners who made the final
decision on school language policy. Thus Afrikaans became the most common
LOLT in African schools. In white schools Ieamers could attend Afrikaans or
English medium schools. Colored and Afrikaner children attended Afrikaans
medium schools and English speaking and Indian children attended English
medium schools. These were separate schools, i.e. white children had their own
schools and so did Indian children.

In 1976 African school children throughout South Africa took to the streets
to protest the imposition of Afrikaans as LOLT. The uprisings were sparked by
the Soweto school children and ignited by the fatal shooting of 13 year old Hector
Petersen, the first victim of police brutality against African school children. Omer-
Cooper (1994, p.226) describes the magnitude of the unrest:

In 1976 schoolchildren throughout Soweto staged a massive
demonstration against the use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction.

10

The police used force to disperse the demonstration and it developed into
bitter and violent rioting that spread from Soweto to other towns around
the Rand and Pretoria and then out of the Transvaal to Natal and the

Cape. The riots were far and away the largest outbreaks of racial violence

that South Africa had ever seen, far greater in scale than the 1952

upheavals and those which followed the 1961 Sharpville massacre.

Contrary to popular belief, the children did not explicitly demand the use of
English as LOLT. There was no mention of a specific LOLT since the main goal
was the removal of Afrikaans as LOLT and the granting of political rights that the
apartheid government had denied the people of South Africa for nearly three
decades. The decline of Afrikaans as a result of the uprisings, however,
contributed immensely to the rise of English as LOLT in schools for African
children.

The political instability that followed the uprisings in African townships also
led to the great exodus of African children from these schools. Parents did not
want their children to miss school because of the ongoing protests and the
detention of African children by the South African Justice department. Police
brutality escalated as the children refused to yield to suppression. Omar-Cooper
(1994, p.226) states:

In the effort to suppress the upheaval the security forces killed large

numbers of young blacks. Hundreds of arrests were made and these

were followed by suspiciously large numbers of ‘suicides’ and unexplained
deaths of persons held in police custody. In response large numbers of
black youths fled the townships and escaped across South Africa’s
borders into Botswana and Swaziland.

Children were abducted from the schools by security police and detained
without trial for days on end. Christie (1986, p.11) describes the situation in this

manner:

11

As we write this book the education system in South Africa is in crisis.

Since 1976 there has been continuing school unrest. Black students have

protested against the education system and also against apartheid in

general. Students have marched, boycotted classes, burned schools and
government offices, and clashed with the police. They have been
expelled, injured, detained and killed. And they have demanded changes
in the education system. Police have fought with birdshot, bullets and
armoured cars...

Overt police brutality and the collapse of education in townships made
some parents transfer their children to English medium schools in white
residential areas. A number of English medium schools began to open their
schools to African children who could be bussed to these schools. This gave
birth to the so-called ‘multiracial’ schools in South Africa. However, only a few
African parents could afford to take their children to these “open” schools (later
known as “Model C" schools).

The final phase of the metamorphosis of language in educab‘on policy is
marked by the declaration of the eleven official languages policy. In 1996, nine
African languages- Setswana, isiXhosa, isiZulu, isiNdebele, Seswati, Sesotho,
Sepedi, Xitsonga and Tshivhenda—became official languages along with English
and Afrikaans. This is a deliberate attempt by the government to make the
schools and the country as multilingual as possible (Act 108 of 1996, 4). In
principle, therefore, the new Constitution and the new Language- in- Education
Policy (LIEP) make provision for the promotion of African languages in schools.

The new policy represents a conscious effort by the government to redress the

imbalances created by apartheid by giving speakers of indigenous languages the

12

chance to have access to education in their mother tongues or in other official
languages of their choice.

The political evolution of language in education policy has made it difficult
for speakers of indigenous African languages to do well in schools. According to
the Language-in-Education Policy, “these discriminatory policies have affected
either the access of the Ieamers to the education system or their success in it'
(Act 27 of 1996, 1). There are several reasons why Ieamers did badly at school.
However, the primary reason of the failure was attributed to the dramatic shift
from mother tongue instruction to English or Afrikaans at standard five. The
common examinations in standard five that would allow Ieamers to move to
middle school were in English or Afrikaans. After six years of mother tongue
instruction, African Ieamers were tested in a new LOLT. Thus, even though the
Ieamers had done well in the first six years of schooling, switching to a new
language, English, lowered their performance (Hartshome 1995, p. 310).

The new policy offers hope for the improvement of the quality of edumtion
of African children who have had limited access to English and Afrikaans and
who, as a result of this limitation, have suffered set backs in education. Schools
as public agencies have the responsibility of implementing the provisions of the
Constitution by promoting the equality of languages. This researcher believes
that if LIEP is not carried out in schools it will remain merely a policy that exists
only on paper. It is against this background that this study was conducted in
order to ascertain the language attitude and practices of Ieamers, teachers and

parents in the North West Province.

13

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The new language in education policy, which grows out of the

Constitutional language policy, is a radical departure from previous policies
because of its overt aim of promoting indigenous languages in South Africa The
preamble of the language in education policy document states that:

The inherited language-in-education policy in South Africa has been

fraught with tensions, contradictions and sensitivities, and underpinned by

racial and linguistic discrimination. A number of these discriminatory
policies have affected either the access of Ieamers to the education
system and the success within it. The new language in education policy is
conceived of as an integral and necessary aspect of the new
govemment’s strategy of building a non-racial South Africa. It is meant to
facilitate communication across barriers of colour, language and region,
while at the same time creating an environment in which respect for

languages other than one’s own would be encouraged. (Act 27 of 1996)

Previous rulers in post-colonial Africa were trying to avoid the competition

of local languages by choosing colonial languages as official languages. The

South African government sought to avoid this post-colonial ”inheritance”
situation by enshrining a national multilingualism policy - eleven official
languages- in its new Constitution:

( 1) The ofiicial languages of the Republic of South Africa are Sepedi,
Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans,
English,isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.

(4) (2) all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be

treated equitably (Act 108 of 1996, p. 4)

The aim of the language policy is therefore to extend the Constitutional
stipulation by promoting multilingualism and redressing the inequalities resulting
from “linguistic discrimination.”

The new language in education policy requires that schools determine

their language policy based on the demands of the students, or 'leamers,’ as

14

they are called in South Africa. The Constitution guarantees the rights of
Ieamers to be taught in official languages of their choice based on practical
considerations, such as the number of Ieamers demanding a particular language
(Act 108 of 1996,14). This Constitutional guarantee, albeit well-intentioned,
poses new problems for teachers, parents and school governing bodies.
Language planning-policy is neither an integral part of teacher training programs,
nor is it included in most higher education programs. Thus most educators have
no theoretical foundation in language planning-policy. Further, the fact that
teacher training programs did not put an emphasis on the pedagogic implications
of mother tongue instruction contributed to the negative attitude toward and the
stigma associated with the use of indigenous languages in education. This is
bound to pose problems for those who are now faced with the challenge of being
active participants in the formulation and implementation of school language
policies. The problem of development of materials to meet the requirements for
teaching indigenous languages is another challenge that is inherent in the
implementation of the policy.

For the policy to be successful, teachers, parents and Ieamers must be
active and willing participants in the implementation of the new multilingual
language policy. The problem of this study, then, was to investigate the
language attitudes and practices of Ieamers, teachers and parents in seven
selected public high schools in the North West Province. As a result of major
challenges facing schools in the implementation of the new language policy,

attitudes of the stakeholders are crucial. The study thus examined the

15

participants’ willingness to implement the new language in education policy.
Knowledge of the policy stipulation alone will not guarantee implementation. As
Heine (1992, p. 25), observes, there can indeed be a ”remarkable gap between
the declared policy and the actual patterns of use“. The new LIEP requires the
use of more than one language of teaming and teaching, the offering of
additional languages as subjects, immersion or other language maintenance
programs, and other means approved by the head of the provincial ministry of
education (Act 27 of 1996, 4). It is critical to ascertain the attitudes of
participants in light of this policy. Successful implementation of South Africa’s
new LIEP is crucial if racial and linguistic inequalities are to be redressed.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the language attitudes and
practices of public high school Ieamers, teachers, and parents in selected public
high schools in South Africa’s North West Province. This broad topic was
investigated against the principles of the new language in education policy
stipulated in Act 108 of the 1996 Constitution. Act 108 of 1996 states that:

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language

or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where

that education is reasonably practicable (p. 14).

There were three groups of participants in the study, Ieamers, teachers
and parents. Questionnaires were administered and face-to-face interviews were
conducted to ascertain: 1) the participants' choice of language (s) used in their
school; 2) their justification for choosing the language (s); and 3) their knowledge

of and views about the language in education policy and the national language

16

policy stipulated in the Constitution. Observations were also carried out at the
seven schools to determine the language practice in curricula, extra-curricula and
non-curricula activities.

The new legislative policy was designed to redress linguistic inequalities of
the apartheid order. It makes provision for the development and promotion of
African languages through their use in all agencies of government including
schools. To implement the new LIEP, Act 27 of 1996, 2 details specific
guidelines for schools:

Languages of teaming and teaching

A learner in a public school shall have the right to instruction in a language

of his or her choice where this is reasonably practical.

Schools shall provide more than one language of learning and teaching

where the need arises.

Languages as subjects

All schools shall offer at least one approved language as a subject in

Grade 1 and Grade 2.

All schools shall offer at least two approved languages, of which one shall

be an official language. from Grade 3(std 1) onwards.

All language subjects shall receive equitable time resource allocation.

A language of teaching and learning (LOLT as used in South Africa) refers
to any language that is used to teach, what would be called a medium of
instruction in other contexts. According to the new LIEP, schools may choose to
offer only one LOLT depending on the demands made by the learners or their

parents, and at least one language as a subject Languages as subjects refer to

additional languages that a school may offer as a subject rather than a LOLT.

17

These languages can also be used as LOLT. So, Setswana can be offered by a
school both as language as a subject and as LOLT.

The addition of the indigenous languages to language policy and planning
in South Africa constitutes a fundamental and radical change in the country's
national language policy which for more than five decades recognized only
English and Afrikaans as official languages. The nation’s boldly expressed policy
statement warrants a close examination to measure the degree to which it has
been implemented thus far, particularly with regard to African languages, since
the policy states that all languages should be treated equally, and that previously
disadvantaged languages must be protected and promoted. Schools as
agencies of govemment have a significant role to play in the promotion of African
languages. However, the successful implementation of the language in
education policy rests on an awareness of the policy stipulations and the
willingness of stakeholders— parents, Ieamers, and teachers—to implement the
policy.

Thus, the purpose of this study was twofold. First, the findings of this
study would inform the feasibility of the realization of the new LIEP with regard to
the attitudes of Ieamers, teachers and parents. Second, the study would also
reveal whether or not there have been any changes in the language in education
policy since the articulation of the new LIEP with regard to languages as subjects
and LOLT’s.

l8

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
There are four major questions that fliis study sought to examine:
1). What are the participants’ preferred languages as subjects and why?
2). What are the participants’ preferred LOLT’s and why?
3). What are the participants’ preferred languages of extra-curricula and non-
curricula activities and why?

4). What are the participants’ opinions about the new LIEP?

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Attltudes: The term is used in this study to refer to preferences. (De Klerk and
Barkhuizen , 1998)
Curriculum 2005: A new outcomes- based national school curriculum aiming at
lifelong education for all South Africans. (Bengu, 1997, p.i)
Content subject: Any school subject other than languages (e.g. mathematics,
history, science, biology.)
DET: Department of Education and Training (former department for Africans)
Dual medium: Two LOLT’s are offered at a school and both are used
interchangeably in classrooms. See also parallel medium.
FlaaltaaI: An argot spoken in the townships, mainly, but not exclusively by
males. It is a mixture of a variety of local languages with an Afrikaans syntax

(Makhudu, 1995). This variety is similar in some way to us. Ebonics.

I9

Language as subject: Any language that is offered by a school as part of the
curriculum of that school. This language might or might not be used for teaching
and teaming other subjects.
Language in Educatlon Pollcy (LIEP): Policy that addresses issues of
languages as subjects, language of teaming and teaching, norms and standards
regarding the protection of individual rights, the rights and duties of the schools,
and the rights and duties of the provincial education departments.( Mothata (ed),
2000, p.93)
Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT): A language used in schools in
South Africa to teach different school subjects] medium of instruction.
Language of Wider Communication (LWC): Language used to communicate
with members of the school community including parents and members of the
larger community and society.
Language Task Group (LANGTAG): A policy advisory group to the national
ministry of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (LANGTAG 1996, p.i)
Learner: Any person studying in a school from K-12. The word is used to
replace ‘student’ or ’pupil’. (Mothata (ed), 2000,p.95).
Medlum (Afrikaans/Setswana/English medium): A language that is used as
LOLT in a school determines the school type, eg. Afrikaans medium school.
Member of the Executive Council (MEC): A provincial minister or head of a
ministry charged with the responsibility of a government department.
Mother tongue: In this study, mother tongue refers to the language that a

speaker uses most in the home. This language is often leamed from the mother.

20

Other languages may be used in the home and therefore may be the speaker’s
first languages.

Official language: Any of the eleven South African languages declared official
by the Constitution of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, p.4

Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB): An independent statutory
body appointed by Parliamentary Senate to monitor the observance of the
Constitutional provisions and principles relating to language use. (LANGTAG

1 996, p.i)

Parallel medium: Two languages are offered as LOLT’s, each group of Ieamers
is taught in one of the LOLT’s. The LOLT’s are not used interchangeably. See
also dual medium. ‘

Parents, Students, Teachers Association (PTSA): A voluntary organization
concerned with non-curricula aspects of a school such as fundraising and cultural
celebrations.

School Act: A policy document that is used as a basis for school governance.
School Governing Body (868): A body elected by parents of Ieamers to act on
their behalf in the governance of a public school. (Mothata (ed), 2000, p.152).
Subject streams: Grouping of Ieamers by subject studied, for example,
Mathematics stream, History stream, Agriculture Science stream.

Language stream: LOLT group in a parallel medium school, English stream,
Afrikaans stream (McCormick, 1986).

Township: A ghetto or inner-city area designated for Africans by the former

apartheid government of South Africa.

21

ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTERS

The present study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one gives a brief
introduction, statement of the problem, historical background of the problem,
purpose of the study and a definition of terminology used in the study.

Chapter two presents a literature review of major studies conducted in
language policy in general, and language in education policy in particular. The
studies range from international to studies canied out in Africa, through research
conducted in the Southern African region, to studies carried out in South Africa
after the 1994 dispensation.

Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used in the gathering of data for this
study. The chapter includes the sample population, the instrumentation and
procedures used in data collection.

Chapter 4 focuses on the data presentation and analysis. The key
questions in the study are presented and the responses are analyzed.

The final chapter of this study is a presentation of conclusions,

recommendations and suggestions for further research.

22

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The research reviewed in this study examines issues pertaining to the
feasibility of implementing Language Planning-Policy, particularly in schools.
Most of the studies focus on attitudes of stakeholders towards languages that are
used as LOLT’s. The stakeholders include governments, governmental
institutions such as the military, schools, students, teachers, and parents. The
binding thread in most of these studies is the fact that they were carried out in
multilingual contexts where, with the exception of the Butzkamm and the
Smithennan studies, indigenous languages are in competition with already
established second or foreign languages. These two common denownators, the
multilingual context and second or foreign language element, are pertinent
factors in the present shrdy.

The persistence of the use of a foreign language as official language that
was evident in the homeland system in South Africa is common elsewhere in the
world, especially in Africa. In his argument for the use of African languages in
post-colonial Africa, Bokamba (1995) draws four major conclusions from
literature on language planning in Africa. The first conclusion that the author
cites is that language planning in African countries is not systematic. According
to Bokamba.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that most of the language policies

in the continent have been imposed, rather than developed systematically

by the various governments that have come to power and the private
institutions (church and commercial enterprises) that have supported them

since the European occupation of the continent in the 17th and 18th
century (p.15).

23

Bokamba further states that the governments allowed the missionaries to
use a few selected African languages but that in the 19" century when the
governments took over the schools, they imposed the official languages of the
colonizers. This is evident in the history of language policy in South Africa where
the British, then the Dutch, governments took tums at imposing first English, then
Dutch and finally English and Afrikaans throughout the years of minority rule in
the country.

The second conclusion that Bokamba draws from the literature on
language planning is that language policies were developed and implemented
‘without significant input from Africans.” Except for consultation with regards to
corpus planning, the attitudes and demographics of the speakers of indigenous
languages were never consulted. The third conclusion, and perhaps the most
relevant to this study, is that:

..post-colonial African states, with a few exceptions, have continued
the inherited colonial era language policies in spite of perceived and
demonstrated problems with such policies. A number of studies have
argued persuasively that the retention of the status quo on the inherited
colonial language policies demonstrates both lack of political will on the
part of African political elites and the existence of an “elite closure“
mentality (p17).

Bokamba’s fourth conclusion is that of the use of “pervasive
multilingualism“ is an excuse for using imported languages as official languages.

African rulers believe that such a multilingual policy will hamper the progress of

unity in nation building. Bokamba, however, argues that there is no evidence

24

that political disunity is a direct result of a policy of multilingualism. Political
discontent is a result of multiple problems that are not necessarily linguistic.

Heine (1992, p. 23) also cites the failure of language policies in Africa as a
result of the inheritance of colonial policies. The author states that:

Most African nations have retained the overall structure of the language

policies which they inherited from the respective colonial power. However,

these same nations are nowadays experiencing serious sociolinguistic
problems...

Heine distinguishes between endoglossic and exoglossic nations. The
former refers to nations that use indigenous languages as official languages, and
the latter refers to those nations that use foreign languages as official languages.
The author observes that endoglossic nations can be active or non-active. It is in
non-active endoglossic nations in which:

...there tends to be a remarkable gap between declared language policy

and actual patterns of language use. Promotion of the indigenous

language on a national level may be the declared goal of their policy, but
most government controlled linguistic communication remains confined to

a foreign language, which is either the only national official language, or

one of a few of these (p. 25).

The notion of retained colonial language policies observed by Bokamba
and Heine is also expressed by Bamgbose(1991, p.69) who argues that
language in education policies in post-colonial Africa are marked by this
“inheritance situation.“ The author states:

Language in education provides the best illustration of what has become
known as an inheritance situation: how the colonial experience continues to
shape and define post-colonial problems and policies. Thus, while it would seem
that African nations make policy in education, what they actually do is carry on
the logic of the policies of the past. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the

very language selected , the roles assigned them, the level at which languages
are introduced and the difficulty of changing these.

25

Bamgbose believes that it is in the language in education policy that the
concept of inheritance is more visible. After the government has selected the
official language/s through status planning, then codified the chosen language/s
in corpus planning, the third phase is acquisition planning. Language in
education policy is governed by what the government decides on acquisition
planning. The language in education policy in South Africa has gone through all
these phases of language planning. The declaration of the eleven languages as
official languages by the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996, p.4, marks the status
planning stage of the policy. The codification of standard dialects by the
language boards marks corpus planning. And finally, the acquisition stage was
founded in the articulation of the LIEP document, the School Act provisions, and
the role of language in the govemment’s Curriculum 2005 document. The main
aim of this present study was to establish whether or not the language in
education policy in the North West in particular was “actually carrying on the logic
of (apartheid) policies of the past“ (Bamgbose 1991, p. 69).

Roy -Campbell (1998,p. 57) states that the inheritance situation was
caused by the African rulers’ “rationalisation that they (colonial languages) were
neutral languages”, and were therefore best suited to be used as languages of
wider communication (LWCs). However, Bamgbose (1991, p. 23) disputes this
concept of neutrality:

While it is true that a LWC does not belong to any ethnic group, it does not

follow that it is therefore neutral and acceptable. All languages are

culture-laden, and a LWC such as English or French carries with it the
values of its native speakers which are shared in some ways with the

elites in Africa. But it is also clear that the language does not “unite“ the
elites, for having used the same language to unite to fight and win

26

independence, they continue to use it for their ethnic and political rivalries

and divisions.

In South Africa, as was the case in Namibia, English was used alongside
indigenous languages as the language of the struggle. But, as Bamgbose
observes, this language continues to be used for “political rivalry.”

South Africa is a multilingual country, first colonized by the British and
then taken over by the Afrikaners, Europeans of Dutch origin. The languages of
these two colonial powers have remained the official languages of the country
since contact with the West in the 17‘" century. The studies reviewed in this
chapter are therefore relevant for the present study since they provide
comparable evidence of what might happen with language policy implementation
in South Africa.

The LIEP was articulated in 1996 after the Constitution of the country had
been published and made available to the public. The policy was a result of
massive consultation with stakeholders, academics and government -instituted
bodies such as the National Language Policy Unit (NLP), Language Plan Task
Group (LANGTAG), Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), and other
bodies like the University of Natal’s Education Policy Unit and the Cents for
Education Policy Development Evaluation and Management (Brown 1997). The
then minister of education announced the LIEP in his July 14,1997 speech. In
his statement on the National Education Policy Act (Act 27 of 1996), Bengu
(1997, p. 2) states:

The underlying principle in our overarching language policy is to maintain
home languages while providing access to and the effective acquisition of

27

additional language(s). Our policy rests upon the right of the leamer to
choose the language of Ieaming and teaching.

Inherent in this policy is the principle of equality of all eleven official
languages in South Africa and the responsibility of the schools to offer these
languages to all children according to their choice and preferences. The
foundation of this policy is in the Constitution of the country, Act 108 of 1996:

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or

languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that

education is reasonably practicable. (p.14)

This principle is further articulated in the Curriculum 2005 document
issued by the National Department of Education (1997, p.22):

An important underiying principle is to maintain home language(s) while

providing access to and the effective acquisition of additional language(s).

Hence the Departrnent’s position that an additive approach to

multilingualism is to be seen as the normal orientation of our language-in-

education policy.

The right to choose the language of teaching is vested with the individual.

This right, has, however, to be exercised within the overall framework of

the obligation on the education system to promote multilingualism.

Schools therefore have the responsibility of canying out the principles laid
down in the Constitutional language provision and in the educational policy
documents. The decisions that they make about school language policy should
reflect the principles articulated in the two documents, the right of the Ieamers to
choose the official language/s of Ieaming and teaching, the maintenance of home
languages and the promotion of multilingualism.

Lessow-Hurley (1990, p.126), states that in the thirty years of the

existence of language policy and planning as a discipline, the initial stages were

characterized by the study of language policy and planning that was restricted to

28

“standardization and dissemination.“ However, according to Lessow-Hurley,
quoting Eastman (1983):

Language planning specialists have begun to consider language problems

and solutions and to develop strategies for managing language change

within the context of historical, social, economic, and political
circumstances of a nation.

The study of language policy and planning in South Africa demands the
above approach as a result of the country’s historically turbulent development of
language policy in general, and language in education in particular. In South
Africa, language and education were used by the apartheid government to
discriminate against the majority of the country’s population, approximately 36
million Africans, Coloreds and Indians. Hence the inclusion of this provision in the
Bill of Rights:

In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this

right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives,

including single medium institutions, taking into account-
(al equity

(b) practicability; and
(c) the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and
practices (my own emphasis). (Act 108 of 19996, p.14)

Most of the literature reviewed in the ensuing discussion reflects the
contextual dimension mentioned by Eastman. The researchers who carried out
the studies considered matters beyond standardization to reflect the political and
social dimensions of language policies.

The following studies focused on different perspectives of policy
implementation such as attitudes towards languages, particulariy African

languages, the use of mother tongue instruction in education, and teacher and

learner preferences for languages of teaching and Ieaming. The studies

29

approach one or two aspects of policy implementation and either
students/Ieamers only, or teachers only and/or parents only.

In order to realize a proposed policy, it is important to measure the level of
interest of the target group of these languages. One such study was conducted
in the United States by Smithennan (1998). The researcher reports on a pilot
survey that she carried out to determine the interest of African Americans in
Ieaming African languages (1998, p. 275). The survey was conducted in five
locations, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Governors’ State
University, Medgar Evers College and Tennessee Missionary Baptist Church.
The researcher used the paper and pencil questionnaire technique. The main
questions asked by the researcher were, among others, whether or not the
respondents have studied an African language, the method used to study such a
language, reasons for studying the language and preferred language. A total of
234 surveys were returned and 86% of the participants were African American,
2% Latino and 12% white.

The results of the survey revealed that only 10.3% of the participants had
actually studied an African language. 74.9% of the participants who had not
studied an African language before indicated that they would “definitely“ want to
study an African language. The most common language preferred by the
participants was Kiswahili. Wolof, Hausa, Yoruba, and lsiZulu were the other
preferred languages. Although Smithennan admits a shortcoming in the paper

and pencil method, and the need to refine her method, she concludes that her

30

survey reveals an enthusiastic interest in the study of African languages among

African Americans. She concludes that:
This research project is premised on the conceptualization of
language as culture, identity and ideology. Learning an African
language is not conceived as an end in itself but as an avenue for
African Americans to rediscover themselves through the power of
language and as a bridge between Africans in the United States
and those in Africa. (p. 280)

Smithennan’s study reveals that even in a country where English is a
predominant language, there still exists an interest in people of African descent
to Ieam African languages. If this is the case, it could be assumed that people in
the continent would also be interested in Ieaming indigenous languages, and not
only foreign colonial languages if the Africans in the diaspora show such an
interest in African languages. Smithennan’s conclusion also reflects a cultural-
identity dimension to the study of African languages. In spite of years of
separation from Africa, the participants in this study show an eagerness to know
their origin through language. In South Africa where English has taken over as
the language of commerce and education, it would be interesting to find out if
there is any urge on speakers of African languages to use the indigenous
languages to maintain their culture amidst the competition resulting from the
hegemony of English.

In another related study, Smithennan (2000, p. 297) conducted a public
opinion survey of African Americans on the English only policy. The researcher
used an instrument that was meant to elicit opinions about the teaching of foreign

languages in public schools. The instrument included a question about the

legislation of English as the sole official language in the United States.

31

Smithennan’s survey was conducted in five cities that have a high density of
African Americans: Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit and Philadelphia. The
survey was conducted by telephone. Telephone numbers were chosen at
random from census tract areas that were 75% or more African American.

The researchers report focuses on two cities, Detroit and Atlanta. The
total number of the sample in the two cities was 414. The respondents for the
English -Only question ranged from 408 to 356. The English-Only question had
three parts, a yes/no question on the legislation of the law, the implication of the
law and the respondent’s attitude towards the law, and the reasons for the
attitude.

The results of the Smithennan survey indicated that 41.4% of the
respondents were not aware of the English only legislation. However, 64.6%
responded “No“ to the question of whether or not they would support such a law.
Only 29.2% of the respondents in the two cities support the English-Only law.
The results also revealed that 53.6% of white respondents in Detroit and Atlanta
were opposed to the English-Only law. Smithennan compared her findings with
a January, 1991 Gallup Public Opinion Survey. The Gallup survey indicates that
78% of registered voters favored the English-Only law. Smithennan cites three
specific shortcomings of the Gallup report including the fact that the study did not
target cities that had a significantly high number of African Americans.

Smithennan concludes that there is a need to educate African Americans
about the English-Only law. Similarly in South Africa, the effective

implementation of the language in education policy will depend to a significant

32

extent on the teachers, parents and the leamers’ knowledge and understanding
of the provisions of the Constitution and the LIEP. A study that focuses on public
opinion, especially of parents, will reveal the level of interest, the preferences and
the level of awareness of the provisions of the language policy.

In the Philippines, English and Spanish used to be the most dominant
languages until the 1973 Constitution declared English and Pilipino official
languages (Pineda 1981, p. 25). The situation in schools in the Philippines was
that a lot of Ieamers dropped out of school after grade four, and most of them
were, according to Pineda, functionally illiterate. Although two million people
could read and write, they could not do so in English, the language in which they
were trained at school. The situation was also aggravated by the fact that
although the greater number of the population was not literate in English, the
laws were in English. There was a distinct class division for those who were
literate in English and those who were not. Pineda states:

Whether it was intended or it was a mere consequence, society was

stratified as a result of the use of a foreign language. Therefore, it is only

the national language that could be a force that would correct the

imbalance that was brought about. (p. 29)

The situation in the Philippines has now changed with Pilipino taking over
the functions that were conducted in English including medium of instruction.
The bilingual language policy in the country allows for the mastery of both
English and Pilipino. English is the country’s primary foreign language and
Pilipino is its national language.

Language planning problems are not only peculiar to countries where

European languages were used as official languages. An example of an African

33

language used to suppress other languages is the Ethiopian imperial government
of Haile Selassie and his successors. Cooper (1989, p. 23) argues that the
economic inequalities in Ethiopia that led to the revolution were fuelled by Haile
Selassie’s language policy. Cooper states:
This inequality was enhanced by the exclusive promotion of Amharic
during the reign of Haile Selassie. Amharic was the country’s official
language. It was the sole medium of initial primary-school instruction
throughout the country, even in Eritrea in which, until the annexation in
1962, Tigrinya and Arabic had been used as mediums of instruction.
Where demand for admission to the first grade exceeded the number of
places available, schoolmasters sometimes reduced demand by requiring
that entering scholars already know how to read and write Amharic.
Cooper further indicates that Christian missionaries were used to promote
Amharicization. It is against this background that Boothe and Walker (1997)
studied the implementation of mother tongue instruction in Ethiopia. The
researchers reported the positive efforts that the government put forth to help
teachers achieve the goal of spreading the use of mother tongue as LOLT across
Ethiopia amidst the challenges posed by constraints in human and physical
resources. Boothe and Walker adopted a participant-observer role. Their study
focused on three major areas: the reason for the initiative, the process of material
development and the effectiveness of the entire process of the use of mother
tongue instruction (1997, p.2).

According to Boothe and Walker, during the reign of emperors in Ethiopia,
Amharic had been enforced as LOLT throughout the country. Wrth the fall of the
last emperor, Haile Selassie in 1974, the new government decided to introduce

the use of mother tongue in non-formal education. In 1991, the Transitional

Government introduced mother tongue instruction in formal education, and in

34

1992 a policy document supporting mother tongue instruction was produced. A
special task group was established to facilitate the translation of the school
curriculum from Amharic into other languages. The problems and challenges
faced by schools in the implementation of the policy were mainly shortage of
human and physical resources. These challenges, however, did not deter the
govemment from promoting the use of mother tongue instruction in schools. The
government provided three quarters of the funding for the development of
material. According to Boothe and Walker, the enthusiasm of non-Amharic
speakers for using their own languages in schools also helped speed up the
success of the policy implementation ( p16). Boothe and Walker concluded that
in spite of the many difficulties that the government faced in implementing mother
tongue instruction, the positive attitudes of parents and children, and the
government’s determination to help, contributed to the success of the
implementation program.

The success of the spread of mother tongue instruction in Ethiopian
schools reflected the willingness of the people of Ethiopia to implement the new
language in education policy. This study also demonstrates that it is not only
foreign languages that can be used to oppress indigenous languages. The
power of a language to maintain hegemony depends on the economic might
associated with that particular language. The elevation of English above other
languages in South Africa was associated with job security and economic upward
mobility. Similarly, in the case of Ethiopia, it was the language of the emperors,

Amharic, that was given the elevated status of official language. Other

35

indigenous languages were suppressed, and Amharic was at times used as a
gatekeeper to deny education, and therefore economic upward mobility, to
speakers of other languages.

Another study that investigated the implementation of a post-colonial
language in education policy in Africa was carried out in Cameroon by Gfeller
and Robinson (1998). The two researchers conducted a study to evaluate the
19808 Projet de Recherche Operationnelle pour I“Enseignement des Langues au
Cameroun (PROPELCA) (Action Research Project for the Teaching of
Languages in Cameroon). The project was an initiative that was geared towards
the promotion of the use of mother tongue as LOLT in Cameroon. The
experiment introduced “extensive multilingualism“ in schools in Cameroon. It
was initiated after the government realized that Ieamers did not do well in school
and that part of the problem was the use of English and French as LOLT’s. The
academic performance of Cameroon Ieamers was found to be declining as a
result of the use of French and English as LOLT’s, so the government initiated
the PROPELCA project to investigate the possibility of switching from foreign
languages to mother tongue instruction.

The experiment began with two schools, but by the time the report was
issued, twenty schools were involved. The research team divided the children
into control and experimental groups. In the experimental group, the children
were taught the subject matter in mother tongue, and in the control group, they
were taught in English or French. The end of term examinations were used as

the instrument to measure the effect of me two different approaches to

36

instruction. The experimental group took the examinations in mother tongue, and
the control group took the examinations in English or French. Results indicated
that the children who took the examinations in their mother tongue performed
significantly better than those who took the same examinations in French or
English (the oflicial languages). The conclusion drawn by Gfeller and Robinson
was that mother tongue instruction facilitates intellectual development since the
leamers’ understanding of the subject matter deepened when they were taught in
mother tongue. The researchers also established that the children preferred
mother tongue instruction to second language instruction:

According to the teachers, the children expressed themselves with more

facility, first in their own language and subsequently in the official

language; generally they preferred being taught in their own language
rather than the official language....pupils’ attitudes show a preference for

this (the use of local languages in instruction) method. (p.25)

As is the case with the new language in education policy in South Africa,
it is imperative to determine the choices and preferences of Ieamers so they will
cooperate with the LIEP. The failure of the Nationalist government in South
Africa to consider the preferences of Ieamers was one of the factors that
contributed to the violent uprising in 1976.

Indigenous language instruction sometimes occurs indirectly through code
switching and code mixing. The use of mother tongue in classes that use colonial
languages is an important aspect in language policy implementation in that it
ensures that the languages are used by schools even if this is done indirectly. In

a small study on code switching, Butzkamm (1998) analyzed a recorded history

lesson in a German grammar school to study the use of mother tongue to

37

facilitate Ieaming. The class was made up of 25 thirteen-year-old Ieamers who
were first language speakers of German. The researcher wanted to examine
how the use of German could facilitate the Ieaming and understanding of a
history lesson in English. Butzkamm marked the instances where the Ieamers
used German and the teacher supplied the corresponding English lexical item.
He also noticed that the Ieamers used non-verbal communication cues such as
pauses to inform the teacher that they could not express the concept or part of
speech in English. Butzkamm concluded that the use of mother tongue in
teaching and Ieaming encourages free communication and therefore maximizes
Ieaming. The Ieamers were not restricted by the use of a foreign language and
could therefore use their mother tongue to facilitate understanding and Ieaming.
However, he admits that the analysis does not prove effectiveness but reflects
what is possible in a practical situation of code switching (p.97).

One noticeable aspect of language policy implementation is that practice
does not always reflect opinions revealed in surveys and oral interviews.
Botswana recognizes English as an official language and Setswana as a national
language. Botswana was a British colony, and English remained a language of
Ieaming and teaching even after independence. Setswana is used in the lower
grades. Arthur (1997) conducted a study in Botswana to determine the views of
primary school teachers about Botswana’s language in education policy.
Previously, the policy called for the use of Setswana as LOLT from grade 1 to

grade 4, and then a switch to English from grade 5. However, in 1993 the

38

National Commission to the Botswana government recommended English as the
sole LOLT in schools.

There were 55 participants (I6 males, 39 females) in Arthur‘s survey, all
primary school teachers drawn from three regions in Botswana, two of which are
predominantly Setswana speaking, and one that is predominantly lkalanga. The
Setswana first language speakers made up 47.3% of the total number of
participants, the lkalanga mother tongue users also comprised 47.3% of the
sample; the remaining 5.5% were speakers of other languages. The researcher
used a questionnaire as his main tool to elicit teacher attitudes towards the use
of Setswana or English as LOLT in primary schools in the country. He also
observed some classes to try and match what they teachers said about the use
of English as sole LOLT and what they actually did in class. The questionnaire
consisted of ten questions about the use of Setswana and English as LOLT’s.

The results of the Arthur study revealed that 56% of the respondents did
not want Setswana as the sole LOLT, and 44 out of 55 respondents supported
the use of English as sole LOLT throughout primary school. Arthur observed
some classes during his research and noticed that teachers did a lot of code -
switching between English and Setswana. He writes:

Secondly, it emerged from my study that teachers respond creatively to

the communicative challenges they face in their classrooms through the

officially frowned-on strategy of code switching between languages.

Teachers are therefore not merely passive agents in the provision of

education but ‘active intermediaries between state concerns and student

aspirations’ (Davies 1988: 293). They occupy a unique vantage point from
which to comment on the translation of policy into practice, dealing as they
do on a daily basis with the discrepancies between cuniculum as planned

and the curriculum in action. These were the reasons for my decision to
solicit teachers’ views on educational language policy. (my own emphasis)

39

The researcher concluded that even if teachers showed an overwhelming
support for English as LOLT, in actual practice, they used both languages,
Setswana and English. The importance of soliciting teachers’ views cannot be
overemphasized since, as Arthur observes, they are responsible for the
actualization of principles in policy documents.

The attitude of students and Ieamers in the use of indigenous languages
in instruction is as important as that of their teachers. The language policy
situation in Zimbabwe is similar to that in other parts of the region, with regards to
the status of indigenous languages in comparison to English. Chiwome and
Thondlhana carried out a survey in Zimbabwe to determine the attitudes of
teachers and students toward the use of Shona as LOLT in the teaching of
Shona. As a result of the policy of the colonial government, English was the sole
medium of instruction for all courses at university, including the two major
languages in the country, Shona and isiNdebele. Chiwome and Thondlhana
believe that attempts to reverse the situation in post-colonial Zimbabwe is:

an arduous one because of the negative effects of the colonial education
policy, which marginalised Shona and Ndebele by making English the
official language, as well as medium of instruction for all subjects in all
educational institutions. In the minds of students, Shona was associated
with the negative aspects of social change such as unemployment and
poverty, whereas proficiency in English was erroneously equated with
intellectual competence. Many concepts made familiar through the
medium of English tended to be expressed in English rather than Shona,
which prevented the development of linguistic and analytical abilities in the

mother tongue (1995, p. 248).

Chiwome and Thondlhana chose Shona because it is their mother tongue

and both had gone through the system of education they describe in the study;

both also taught high school and university in this system. The parb'cipants in the
Chiwome and Thondlhana study were 143 first year university students in the
department of African languages who were reading Shona, 25 high school
teachers of Shona, and university lecturers from the departments of African
Languages and Literature, Linguistics, and Curriculum Studies at the University
of Zimbabwe. The researcher chose the students on the basis of:

their apparently genuine interest in the subject, pursuing it to university

level , which made them more likely to give reliable information about their

experiences. (p. 251)

The researchers used a questionnaire for the students and structured face
to face interviews with teachers to corroborate the students’ responses. The
questionnaire was meant to reveal the students’ general attitudes toward Shona
by eliciting the students’ high school Ieaming experience with Shona. The
interviews with the teachers included their use of Shona as a medium of teaching
to teach the language itself. The questions also included the students’ attitudes
towards the use of Shona and what languages the teachers encouraged the
students to use when there was an option between Shona and English.

The results of the survey showed a general tendency to use bout Shona
and English as media of instruction in high school whereas at university there
was “a marked preference for Shona over English as a medium of instruction“
(p252). Some of the advantages mentioned for using Shona as a language of
instruction were that topics in cultural studies were easy to discuss in Shona, the

language fosters understanding, students express themselves better in Shona

and rote learning is prevented. The major disadvantage of using Shona was

41

mainly a result of lack of formal standard register for the language, the influence
of colonial attitudes towards African languages and the lack of encouragement
from the Ministry of Education. Also, some teacher participants believed that the
students’ attitudes towards Shona were influenced by their teachers’ attitudes
and professional competence.

Chiwome and Thondlhana affinn what Arthur observed about teacher
practice in classrooms:

It is not uncommon to find Shona courses being taught in both languages

in lecture rooms. This again, is a pragmatic decision: lecturers feel that

certain issues need to be presented in Shona, and then evaluated in

English. Essential as it may be, such practice can undermine the image of

the national language in the minds of the students and give them the

impression that serious discussion cannot be carried out in Shona. (p.

256)

In another Zimbabwean study, Mparutsa, Thondhlana and Crawhall
surveyed the language attitudes of secondary school students in the country.
The investigation stemmed from earlier studies conducted before Ngara (1982)
and the Chiwome and Thondlhana (1992) study discussed above. The study
was aimed at examining post-independence language attitrdes. Mparutsa,
Thondlhana and Crawhall chose 100 secondary school participants for their
study. The researchers’ choice of population was based on three main reasons:
1) this was the first generation of post-war Zimbabweans who were expected to
have “internalised some of the changes in the curricula,“ 2) the participants’ ages
could be compared to those in the Ngara studies, and 3) the researchers had
relatively easy access to the participants through the University of Zimbabwe’s

Open Day which drew students from all parts of the country.

42

The researchers observed that there are inherent contradictions in a study
such as theirs because when examining attitudes, there is bound to be a
discrepancy between “ ..what people say they believe, what they say they do,
what they actually do, and perhaps even what they actually believe may all be
different from each other“ (1992, p.239). The researchers also believe that these
contradictions in their country stemmed from ideological issues:

The war of liberation put great emphasis on pride of indigenous culture

and language. The use of the indigenous languages was a counter-

ideological instrument to be used against colonial ideological hegemony,
and its linguistic instruments English and Chilapalapa (Fanagalo). Yet,
since independence, English has remained the de facto language of
power and economic advancement. School curricula reflect this
contradiction in a number of ways. Further it is possible for that teachers
reproduce this contradiction through their own attitudes and actions. (my

own emphasis) (238)

Mparutsa, Thondlhana and Crawhall used a two-part questionnaire to elicit
the participants’ attitudes and usage. Section A of the questionnaire contained
seven questions of usage and Section B five questions of attitude. The usage
questions included the language of mass media that the respondents preferred,
the language of the country’s information boards (road signs, etc), and the
medium of instruction that they preferred. The attitude questions included the
association of English with a high level of education, the equality of Shona and/
or IsiNdebele with English, and the importance and usefulness of Shona and
lsiNdebele. The results of the investigation revealed that even though the
participants believed in the importance of national languages, 83% said they

would not use them as media of instruction. The reasons given for this response

were the common ones of international intelligibility, lack of resources for African

43

languages and job opportunities and career advancement. On the question of
national languages used for national information boards, 71% said yes. The
attitude scores were higher than usage scores in that 95% of the respondents
said all educated Zimbabweans should know something about literature in the
national languages; 69% said national languages and English are equal; 83%
said all educated Zimbabweans should speak English; and 96% said national
languages were important and useful, and should be taught at all levels of
education.

The researchers admit the flaws in their instruments by stating that
questionnaires should be backed by structured interviews. They also said that
they used questions that were used previously and noticed that these questions
elicited stereotypical responses:

The questions that were asked in this pilot study are questions which other

researchers in the area have been asking. There is a clear indication that

some of these questions, especially those on attitude, have in the past
and even now elicited mere stereotyped responses and cliches. There is,
therefore, a need to design a better instrument that will enable us to obtain

more reliable understanding of language attitudes in Zimbabwe. (p. 239).

Many theorists assert that African languages are inefficient as LOLT’s
because these languages do not have terminology that can incorporate foreign
concepts. In an attempt to examine this notion, Prah (1993) conducted a survey
among 720 university students in Southern Africa to determine their attitudes
toward and perceptions of African languages as media of instruction in science
and technological education. The researcher also sought to solicit the

respondents’ views on the pros and cons of using indigenous languages in

teaching science and technology. Prah’s study addresses similar issues

presented in the Chiwome and Thondlhana study cited above except that Prah’s
investigation extends to the teaching of science and technology.

The subjects in Prah’s study were students from six universities in
Southern Africa: Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, Western Cape, Transkei and
Lesotho. The majority of these students were between 16 and 25 years of age.
The researcher used a questionnaire to elicit the students’ perceptions and
attitudes. Prah’s instrument covered the following areas:

1) whether or not scientific and technological ideas could be rendered in

African languages,

2) ifthe respondents’ understanding of science and technology would

improve if they were taught in African languages,

3) why the teaching of science and technology had not been rendered in

African languages,

4) when such teaching in indigenous languages could occur, and

5) the negative social effects of using African languages to teach science

and technology.

The results were as follows: 76% responded yes to question 1 above;
91% responded yes to question 2; the reasons given for question 3 included
scarcity of resources, the degrading of African languages by colonial powers, the
current absence of expertise in teaching science and technology through African
languages and the unequal status of languages; answers to question 4 included
demands from grassroots, greater democracy in Africa, when Africans have

confidence in themselves and their histories and when languages are given

45

equal status; question 5 responses included the increasing significance of
English as an international language, the cost involved in the program, and the
possibility of ethnic tensions.

The results of Prah’s study revealed that a significant number of students
believe that their language is adequate enough to be employed as LOLT in the
teaching of content subjects. The researcher's conclusion is that African
students have a positive attitude towards the use of African languages as LOLT’s
and that they “would support the effort of translating and rendering of scientific
and technological ideas into African languages as an instrument for the
achievement of social development“ (Prah 1993, p. 70).

The implementation of the new language policy in South Africa faces
similar challenges to those faced by countries elsewhere in the world and
particulariy in Africa as the above studies demonstrate. The language planners
and the people responsible for the execution of such policy can draw from the
experiences of other countries on the Continent and elsewhere in the world such
as in the Philippines and in India. The “legal force“ that Phillipson (1992) decries
in other countries has been guaranteed, at least in principle, by the provisions of
the South African Constitution and the LIEP document. Research conducted in
South Africa will therefore need to be matched to the principles laid down by
these two documents.

In a study similar to that by Prah (1993) and Chiwome and Thondlana
(1992), Mmusi et. al. (1998) conducted a survey at the University of the North

(UNIN) to determine the LOLT preference at their university. The survey was

meant to be representative of all members of the university community, students,
academic and support staff as well as administrators. The researchers wanted to
be certain that all stakeholders at UNIN were surveyed and that their opinions
were expressed.

The researchers used a questionnaire to elicit the opinions of the UNIN
community with regard to language preferences for curricula, extra-curricula and
non-curricula communication. They made a distinction between the LOLT’s and
the languages of wider communication, the former meant for teaching and
learning, and the latter for extra-curricula and non-curricula communication.
Copies of the questionnaire were distributed through the deans’ offices, to the
union office and to administrators and supporting staff.

The results of the survey revealed that “an overwhelming majority chose
English as the language of instruction. Northern Sesotho and XiTsonga followed
second“ (Mmusi et al 1998, p.3). Although the results revealed a preference for
English as LOLT, nonetheless, the survey indicated that respondents preferred a
multilingual policy for extra-curricula and non-curricula communication. The
researchers recommend that the use of African languages outside the lecture
halls should be encouraged. One way of achieving this and would be extending
the use of indigenous languages to administrative and academic communication,
that is, for extra-curricula and non-curricula communication.

The researchers concede that their findings were limited because the majority of

the student respondents were from the faculty of Arts.

47

In an attempt to examine the effectiveness of the new language policy in
South Africa, De Klerk and Barkhuizen conducted research on the South African
National Defense Force, specifically the Sixth South African Infantry Battalion
(6SAI) in Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape Province. The main aim of the
study was to determine language practices and attitudes toward the new
language policy within this former predominantly Afrikaans government structure.
The research also sought to ascertain the official language policy of the Battalion.

The researchers used 279 subjects from the Battalion’s three companies
in the study. All eleven official languages were represented by the sample. The
researchers used three techniques of data collection: questionnaires, interviews
and observations. The research was conducted in English even though 34% of
the participants were mother tongue speakers of isiXhosa. The questionnaire
was meant to elicit bio-data, the in-depth interviews were meant to establish the
subjects’ belief about what the actual language policy is, and the observations
were meant to corroborate the information provided through the other two tools
(De Klerk and Barkhuizen 1998, p. 221).

The results indicated that the Battalion was formulating its own language
policy and that it had chosen English as the language of administration, in
principle. In practice however, Afrikaans continued to be the dominant language
of the South African Defense Force. The strength of this research, although not
conducted in education, is the use of three methods for data collection and the

representation of all the eleven languages in the country.

48

Education research in South Africa tends to be conducted at Historically
White Universities (HWU’s) or by members of these institutions. This bias is
reflected by the number of articles in refereed journals. There is therefore a need
to conduct research in other provinces that do not have HWU’s. The study by
Verhoef (1998) is presently most probably the only recorded research in
language in education policy issues outside HWU’s. Verhoef conducted a small
scale study among African high school Ieamers in the North West Province to
determine their perceptions towards English and African languages. The four
major languages in the province are Setswana, isiXhosa, English and Afrikaans.

The researcher used 145 African Ieamers from unspecified high schools in
the North West. According to Verhoef, the sample represented 8% of the total
number of Ieamers in the province. The survey was conducted in rural areas;
therefore there were no English first language speakers in the sample. Verhoef
used the questionnaire as the primary tool for data collection. She then did a
random selection of 10% of the respondents to conduct in-depth face-to-face
interviews. A structured questionnaire was used in the interviews.

The results of the Verhoef study revealed that 64.9% of the respondents
supported the use of English as LoLT, 64.7% chose English as a favorite subject
and Afrikaans, Setswana, Sesotho and IsiXhosa followed in that order. The face-
to-face interview results revealed that Ieamers prefened English because of the
manner in which it was taught by teachers, its economic benefits, and its use as
a lingua fiance in the country. The results also revealed that 68% of the

interviewees were proud of the official status of indigenous languages but

49

regarded the status as “having only symbolic value“ (Verhoef 1998, p.190).
Respondents were grateful for the elevated status of indigenous languages but
also recognized the functional value of English. High school Ieamers were the
only participants in this study, and the study involved only African children.

The studies reviewed in the preceding discussion dealt with various
aspects of language planning-policy with special emphasis on language in
education policy. Apart from the Arthur study, there has not been much research
involving the three major stakeholders in policy matters—parents, Ieamers and
teachers. In their review of Heugh, Smitherman and Thiba (1998, p. 322) state
that it is important to involve the main Stakeholders, i.e. the speakers of
indigenous languages, in the study and discussion of matters pertaining to
language policy and planning in South Africa. It is the exclusion of the speakers
of indigenous languages in South Africa that resulted in ill-conceived language
policies of the pre-1994 era, particularly in education. In South Africa in
particular, there is a need to conduct research into the implementation of the new
language in education policy to establish whether or not the major beneficiaries
of the policy- parents, Ieamers and teachers-are supportive of the new policy.
Further, as Arthur points out, much of the research concerning policy is done
outside the classroom; however, it is in the classroom that actual policy
implementation can be observed. There is a great need therefore to investigate
language in education policy on site, at schools, and in actual classrooms. The
opinions of the speakers of indigenous languages is a very important dimension

of research into the implementation of language in education policy in South

50

Africa given the politics of divide and rule and exclusion that characterized the
apartheid era. The importance of the role of speakers of indigenous languages,
ordinary people that get affected by decisions taken on their behalf, is central to
research in language policy and planning.

The literature reviewed in this chapter points to the possibilities of the
realization of post-colonial language policy, and the attitudes and perceptions of
teachers and Ieamers towards the use of African languages as LOLT’s.
However, attitudes and perceptions do not always reveal actual practice. The
purpose of this present study is therefore to ascertain the attitudes as well as the
actual practices of those involved in language in education policy. The study
surveyed three different groups of stakeholders, Ieamers, teachers and parents.
Similarities and differences of attitudes and practice of these three groups will

impact the realization of language in education policies.

51

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES
rview f thodo

The purpose of this study was to investigate the implementation of South
Africa’s new Language in Education Policy. The study concentrated on seven
high schools in the North West Province. The Province was chosen for two
major reasons. First, the researcher was born, lives and teaches in the Province
and she is therefore more familiar with the area than with any other province in
the country. The second reason is that prior to 1994, the North West was divided
into a Bantustan and the Republic of South Africa. There were, therefore, three
separate departments of education, National Education for White, Colored and
Indians, the Department of Education and Training (DET) for African children,
and Bophuthatswana Ministry of Education for children designated to be citizens
of the Bantustan. The difl'erent education departments in apartheid South Africa
had racial and linguistic implications in that the languages in education were
determined by the race of the Ieamers and the departments to which they
belonged. After the 1994 elections, the three departments were merged into
one. Any changes in language in education policy that might have taken place
as a result of this amalgamation would be relevant to this study.

The goal of this study was a broad scale assessment of the language
preferences and practices of high school Ieamers, teachers and parents in the
Mafikeng and Vryburg districts. The initial conception was a triangulation study,

combining written questionnaires, classroom observations, and in-depth

52

interviews. However, once the researcher began fieldwork, it became apparent
that there were a number of obstacles working against the full and rigorous
implementation of this methodological conception. Thus the original design was
modified in the direction of an ethnographic study. The obstacles encountered
reflect the political history of South Africa, the continuing significance of race,
lingering racial tension, and the legacy of traditional cultural values.

Despite the democratization of South Africa in 1994 and efforts to usher in
a “new“ South Africa, the history of racialized, separate education has left a
legacy of racial tension. This is reflected in the North West Province as well as
elsewhere in the country. The town of Vryburg in particular has been in the
media since the racial clashes at school VC in 1997. The school was a former
white Afrikaans only medium scth that did not admit African children until 1997.
The first African children to be admitted at the school were later attacked by a
group of white parents and instructed to leave the school. The intervention of the
Provincial government and the Lawyers for Human Rights did very little to quell
the racial tensions. In 1999 the school appointed the first African vice principal
and 140 African Ieamers remained in the 600 Ieamer school. In order to
accommodate African Ieamers, the school introduced English as LOLT and
Setswana as a second language as a subject. White and African children are
taught in separate classes since the LOLT’s are parallel media (languages that
are used separately and not interchangeably). All African Ieamers are taught

through the medium of English and all white Ieamers are taught through

53

Afrikaans. No African Ieamers participate in the school’s sports activities and the
school governing body (868) is all white.

Vryburg is a completely racially divided town and race relations in the town
are very strained. An incident that happened early on at school V0 is illustrative
of bile tension. On the day the researcher was picked up after delivering the
letter of request to the principal, a parent and a learner deliberately stood in the
way to make it difficult for the researcher and her brother/driver to pass.

At school MB, also a former white only Afrikaans medium school, and like
school VC, the site of early resistance to accepting African Ieamers, the principal
informed the parents at the $68 elections about the researcher‘s request for
volunteers for interviews. Not a single one of the white parents volunteered to
participate in the study. (Nor did any Colored parents).

As a result of the racial tension in the North West Province in general, and
the two districts involved in this study in particular, it was very difficult to access
white parents. Thus the research sample in this study includes no white parents
and does not reflect their views, as speakers of English and Afrikaans home
languages, about language in education policy. Although this is a limitation, in
that the study‘s results cannot be said to reflect the attitudes and practices of
white parents, it is important to note that the ovenrvhelming majority of the
population in the North West Province (and in South Africa nationally) are not
whites but Africans, who have as their home languages not English or Afrikaans

but African languages. In the North West, only one percent of the population has

54

English as a home language, and only eight percent (including Coloreds) use
Afrikaans as a home language (CSSSA, 1996).

Another major obstacle encountered involved the use of the consent form.
While it is standard practice in the US, for Africans in the South African context,
the consent form was symbolic of apartheid era practices. Signed statements
obtained under questionable circumstances were used against Africans to
charge them with alleged acts of treason, or inciting others to acts of violence
against the State. Requiring participants to sign a document in order to
participate in a study was a painful reminder of signed “confessions“ and tricks
used by the security police in the old apartheid South Africa. Two parents who
were also government officials, one in the office of the Provincial Minister, the
other a Director in the Education Ministry, refused to sign the form and stated
that they appreciated what the researcher was doing and therefore did not see
the reason for filling out a form.

Many potential participants were put off by the consent form, not only
because of the wariness as a result of the history of racial oppression in South
Africa, but also because of cultural conventions about verbal agreements and
concerns about trustworthiness. In the local African culture, giving one’s word is
an act of honor and commitment. The view that “your word is your bond“ is
deeply held in this cultural context. The consent form made potential participants
suspicious of the researcher’s intentions, and the requirement that the form be
signed reflected a lack of trust between participants and researcher. The

researcher in this study experienced a lot of last-minute withdrawal from

55

participation. In fact, one would-be participant said, “Do I have to sign a form for
you, even you?“ Participants could not understand why they needed to sign a
form for the researcher when they had given her their word to participate in the
study.

It was not possible in this study to enlist a white co-researcher to
overcome the barrier posed by racial tension, and thus no white parents were
interviewed. Wrth Africans and Colored, the researcher sought to maximize
participation by conducting interviews within the confines of the questionnaire, by
allowing teacher-participants to talk off the record, and by not audio or video
recording the interviews and observations. Further, the questionnaire was
prepared in several languages to accommodate the preference of the participant,
and the interviews were conducted in the participant’s language of choice.
Nonetheless, most teachers did not return the questionnaires, and several
parents did not honor the interview appointments. The number of parent and
teacher participants is considerably smaller than originally projected and the
interviews more limited in scope than anticipated.

Despite the limitations discussed above, the study does reveal critical data
about views of language in education in the North West Province.

Design of Study

Language preferences and practices, both in and outside of the
classroom, and opinions about the new Language in Education Policy were
assessed. Three main stakeholders were studied: Ieamers, teachers and

parents. These three groups of participants were chosen in order to form a more

56

balanced picture of language attitudes and policy implementation man had been
the case in previous studies. For example, work by Verhoef (1998) focused on
language attitudes of Ieamers only. Arthur (1997) focused on teachers only.
Mparutsa, Thondhlana and Crawhall (1992, p.239) focused on Ieamers and
teachers. Very few studies pay attention to the attitudes and role of parents in
language in education matters. Smithennan’s study of African Americans’
attitudes toward the study of African languages was an exception in this regard; it
was aimed at language attitudes of what she called “everyday people“
(Smithennan, 1998), which included parents.

In South Africa in particular, the role of parents is strengthened by the
provisions of the Constitution that empower parents to take an active part in the
formulation of language in education policy, a right that they had been explicitly
denied by the apartheid government. Parents form an important part of the
school community in the new dispensation. Both the LIEP and the School Act
demand that parents, through School Goveming Bodies (SGB’s) and Parent-
Teacher-Student Associations (PTSA’s), make major decisions concerning
school administration and implementation of policies so that children are not in
any way discriminated against. Parents are expected by the schools to make
decisions on behalf of their minor children concerning languages choices. It is
therefore necessary to take into consideration the role of parents in language in
education policy matters.

It was not only crucial to assess language attitudes. Language practices

were also critical in investigating the realization of the new Language-in-

57

Education Policy. Attitudes may reveal what people think or feel about a certain
topic, or their intentions towards a topic, what some theorists call “behavioral
intent.“ However, there is often a discrepancy between intention and actual
behavior. In their study of attitudes and language usage in Zimbabwe. Mparutsa,
Thondhlana and Crawhall (1992, p. 239) observed that“ ...what people say they
believe, what they actually do, and perhaps what they actually believe may all be
different from each other.“ Therefore in this study actual language practices of
Ieamers, teachers and parents were studied.

To maximize reliable information gathering, ethnographic observations
were combined with survey questionnaires, which were administered in writing to
students and eight teachers and verbally to parents to counterany possible
problem of literacy. Additionally, the teachers whose classrooms were observed
were interviewed using the questions from the written questionnaire. The survey
and observations took place over a ten-week period from the last week of
January to the last week of March, 2000.

The questionnaire was a three-page, three-part survey. The first part
consisted of three questions aimed at eliciting the participants’ gender, home
language and other languages they spoke. There was no question about race of
participant since it is now illegal in South Africa to ask about a person’s race
except under certain well-defined conditions as spelled out in the new legislation.
The second part of the questionnaire was aimed at eliciting the participants’
preferences for languages offered as subjects, languages preferred as LOLT(s),

and languages preferred for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities. The

58

third part focused on opinions about the Language in Education Policy (LIEP).
(See Appendix 3, “Language in Education Survey.“) The data revealed from the
surveys is rich and informative because the questions were open-ended, allowing
for original responses. Mpanrtsa at. al. (1992) commented that survey questions
in language attitude studies are usually constructed in such a way that the
responses are cliched and stereotypical. The instrument used in this study was
designed to avoid this shortcoming by allowing participants to articulate their own
responses, rather than choosing from options that the researcher constructed.

The questionnaire was administered by the researcher at each school.
The maximum time it took to complete the questionnaire was twenty minutes.
The researcher distributed the questionnaire herself, stayed in the same
classroom as the participants to answer any questions related to the
questionnaire, and collected the questionnaire herself. A total of 171 Ieamers and
eight teachers completed the questionnaires, and an additional fourteen teachers
were surveyed through interviews using the questions identical to those on the
questionnaire. Twenty parents answered the same questions in face-to-face
interviews.
Reflrch Sites

The sample was drawn from seven public schools in the Mafikeng and
Vryburg districts of the North West Province. The researcher chose public
schools because the LIEP is directed toward public schools and not that much at
private schools. Also the majority of the country’s Ieamers are in public schools

rather than private schools. The selection of the schools was based on the

59

LOLT’s of the schools prior to the articulation of the new LIEP. There were three
dominant LOLT’s in schools in the Province: Setswana, Afrikaans and English.
However, Setswana was not an officially recognized LOLT. Further, a significant
number of Ieamers were IsiXhosa mother tongue speakers but IsiXhosa was not
an officially recognized LOLT. In terms of the general language use in the
Province, the aforementioned languages are the four dominant language groups.
Additionally, Sesotho and lsiZulu are also languages of significant presence in
the Province.

The original number of schools intended for this study was six; however,
another school, a Colored Afrikaans medium school, was added as a safety
measure in case access was denied to one of the two former white Afrikaans
medium schools chosen for the study. In fact only on the third visit to the said
white Afrikaner school did the principal grant the researcher access to the school.
The seven schools were divided into LOLT’s in this manner: 1) three former
Afrikaans medium, 2) two former English medium, and 3) two former DET
schools (i.e., schools established for African Ieamers in apartheid South Africa)
where the official LOLT was English and Setswana was an unofficial LOLT.

The selection of three different media schools was intended to reveal
whether or not there had been any changes in the LOLT policy since the
introduction of the new Language in Education Policy (LIEP). The schools that
were selected for this study are located in Mafikeng, the capital of the North West
Province where the researcher lives and works, and Vryburg, the researcher’s

birth place and one of the two most right wing conservative towns in the

Province. The location of each school reflects the former apartheid Group Areas
Act that dictated the residential areas of citizens according to race. One DET
school is in the village designated for AmaXhosa, the other is in a township
(ghetto). The Afrikaans Colored school is in a Colored township, the one English
medium school is in what used to be the capital of Bophuthatswana, the other is
in an Indian residential area. Both former Afrikaans schools are in town (in South
Africa, a former white only residential area).

The Mafikeng schools refened to in this study as MA, MB and MC were, in
the past, English/DET medium (MA), Afrikaans medium (MB) and English
medium/Model C - a school that accepted Ieamers of all racial groups in
apartheid South Africa- (MC). The schools were referred to in this study by
symbols to protect the identity of the schools and to ensure confidentiality in the
consent forms. The MA school was a school meant for African children and it
remains mainly African even after the 1994 dispensation. The school is situated
in a predominantly IsiXhosa speaking rural area 15km outside Mafikeng and has
a total number of 960 Ieamers and thirty-two teachers. Sixty percent of the
Ieamers are first language speakers of IsiXhosa.

The MB school is a former white only, Afrikaans medium school in the city
of Mafikeng. The school first opened its doors to African Ieamers in 1996. The
470 Ieamers are a racially mixed group of Setswana, English and Afrikaans first
language speakers. The school has nineteen teachers, sixteen white Afrikaans
first language speakers, two Colored Afrikaans first language speakers and one
Setswana first language teacher. The school introduced English as LOLT to

61

accommodate English and Setswana first language speakers. Afrikaans and
English are now used as dual LOLT’s (two languages used interchangeably in
teaching and learning) at the school. English remains the only language as a
subject at the school.

The third school, MC, is a former Model C school, which means a school
that admits Ieamers of all racial groups. It is situated in the former
Bophuthatswana capital of Mmabatho (now Mafikeng). The school was built for
children of the Bantustan cabinet ministers, white civil servants and other
professionals who could afford to pay the fees. Although the school was public,
i.e. supported by public funds, admission was restricted. Admission tests were
administered to potential applicants and a high grade in English was a must. The
school was explicitly English medium and continues to be so. The 43 member
staff is racially mixed: white, Indian, African, and Colored. The Ieamer population
is 960 and it is becoming increasingly African. The school has Afrikaans, French,
English, and Setswana as languages as subjects.

The Vryburg district was chosen because there has been a lot of racial
tensions and conflict caused by the refusal of the white Afrikaans medium
schools to admit African children. The latest of these tensions was reported in
the “Saturday Star“ of May 27, 2000, less than eight weeks after one of the
schools was visited as part of this study. In this study the four Vryburg district
schools are referred to as VA, VB, VC and VD. VA is a Colored (or “Kleurling“
South African terminology for people of racially mixed descent) school and it was

used as a second choice school since denial of access to the white Afrikaner

62

school had been anticipated. The teaching staff is predominantly Colored and
there are two Indian teachers. The Ieamers are also Colored with a few African
children. The school’s former LOLT was Afrikaans and it still is. English is the
only language as a subject offered by this school.

VB is an English medium school that has a predominantly Indian
population. Of the fifteen teachers, nine are Indian, two are white and four are
African. The school has twelve grades, one to twelve, and an average of twenty-
five Ieamers per class. It is the first school in the Vryburg district to accept
African children. Afrikaans is the only language as a subject offered by the
school and this has been the case since its inception.

VC is a former Afrikaans medium school that has 600 Ieamers of which
only 140 are African. There are twenty-six teachers who are predominantly
Afrikaans speaking whites, a few Colomds, a few Africans including the vice-
principal and one Indian. English and Afrikaans are two LOLT’s at the school.
The two languages are used as parallel medium, i.e. two LOLT’s used separately
and not interchangeably. Setswana and English are the two languages as
subjects at the school.

VD is a typical DET inner-city school that is almost entirely African with the
exception of four Indian children and one Afrikaner teacher. There are 1058
Ieamers and thirty-seven teachers. For 21 years, this was the only high school in
the township for thousands of African children. The second high school was
opened five years ago in 1996. The school uses English as the official LOLT, but

63

some teachers use Setswana interchangeably with English. Both Afrikaans and
Setswana are offered as languages as subjects.
The following table shows a summary of the participants by their schools

as well as their LOLT before the introduction of the new LIEP:

TABLE 1: Participants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHOOL LEARNERS TEACHERS PARENTS LOLT (-’96)
MA 43 05 05 ENG/DET
Tris 31 02 02 AFR/WHITE
MC 13 02 02 ENGWIIXED
VA 15 03 03 AWL.
"Va 25 02 03 ENGNV& m‘o
vc 14 05 02 AFR/WHITE
”VD 25 03 03 ENG/DET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key: ENG/DET = English for African Ieamers, AF RIWHTTE = Afrikaans white only, ENG/WXED =
English for racially and linguistically mixed learners, AF RICOL . = Afrikaans for Colored Ieamers,
ENGMIS IND = English for White and Indian bamers.

These seven schools, although selected mainly on the basis of their
former LOLT, also represented an inner -city (township in South African
terminology) population, rural population and urban population. Since language
policies in different schools were based on apartheid principles of segregation
and racial and linguistic exclusion, the new policies should reflect changes
because of the changing nature of the linguistic and racial compositions of the
schools. Also, DET language policy dictated three languages, whereas the new
policy allows two languages. In order to answer the research questions in this
study, therefore, it was necessary to investigate language policy at three different

types of language media schools.

Research gmple — Parents
The new LIEP has made the role of parents in schools very important.

The election of SGB’S and PTSA is compulsory for each school. Parents are
expected to play an active role in the education of their children. The School Act
and the LIEP document specify that parents and Ieamers must make decisions
concerning the leamers’ LOLT and language/s as subject/S. Schools are bound
by law to meet demands made by parents on behalf of their children with regards
to choice of language, as much as it is practical.

Twenty parents were interviewed for this study, four males and sixteen
females. The parents were approached by the researcher at various locations.
Some parents were met at the principals’ offices when they came to pay fees or
visit schools. Others were met at SGB elections and PTSA meeting. The
researcher explained her research to parents and requested them to volunteer.
As already stated, all parents were interviewed face-to-face rather than given
written surveys because of the possibility of low level literacy for some parents.
The interviews were carried out in languages preferred by parents: Afrikaans,
Setswana, English, Sesotho and/ or lsiZulu. The interviews were concluded from
January to March, 2000. The questions in the interview were identical to those in
the questionnaire administered to Ieamers. The interviews were no longer than
twenty minutes per parent. Parents chose the language in which they preferred
to be interviewed. '

The parents at school MA were interviewed after a PTSA meeting. Five

parents, all women were interviewed, on a one-to—one basis. Three of the

65

parents were interviewed in Setswana, one in Afrikaans and Setswana, and one
in lsiZulu. For school MB, the two parents were interviewed on a one-to-one
basis at the home of one of the parents. The parents are members of a women’s
economic empowerment club that was co-founded by the researcher and they
chose to be interviewed at home. The parents were interviewed on a one-to-one
basis. Both parents were female and they used Setswana and English code
mixing. The one parent was interviewed after an SGB election meeting. Bout
the researcher and the parent used English, Sesotho and Afrikaans code mixing.
The other parent was interviewed on Sunday at church and the interview took
place in Setswana almost entirely.

Three parents volunteered for interviews on March 20, 2000. They were
all Colored females and they were interviewed in Afrikaans at the school. For
school VB, three parents were interviewed at their individual homes, all female
Setswana first language speakers. All three interviews were conducted in
Setswana, Afrikaans and English code mixing. Although it was very difficult to
get parents from school VC, the researcher finally got two female volunteers.
Both parents were IsiXhosa first language speakers who also speak fluent
Setswana. The interview was conducted in Setswana. The three volunteers for
school VD were also interviewed at their homes. They were all male Setswana
first language speakers. The interviews were conducted in the local Setswana

dialect.

Research gmgle — Teachers
A total of twenty-two teachers participated in this study, ten males and

twelve females. Eight teachers completed the written questionnaire; fourteen
who were observed in class were interviewed face-to-face using questions
identical to the questionnaire administered to Ieamers. The classroom
observation was meant to reveal the actual LOLT’s used, rather than just what
the teachers said they used. Several teachers talked to the researcher off the
record about the new LIEP, but very few were willing to speak on the record
about the policy. The questionnaires were distributed during tea breaks to
teachers who volunteered; most teachers said they needed time to go through
the questionnaires. However, there was a general reluctance to complete the
questionnaires and/or to be interviewed about the questions of language policies.
The teachers who initially volunteered to participate in the study declined after
being requested to Sign the consent form. The teachers became suspicious
because, as mentioned earlier, in apartheid South Africa, information in written
from was sought from people and later used against them in courts or to convict
people for alleged acts of inciting violence against the State. Not very many
teachers nor parents were therefore willing to put their signature on the consent
form. In fact, the whole idea of a consent form was foreign to most participants,
and it was therefore judged with suspicion.
Research Sample: Learners

A total of 171 grade ten Ieamers participated in the completion of the

questionnaire, 85 males and 86 females. The teachers who were observed

67

decided which class would complete the questionnaire: language, science or
mathematics class. The Ieamers completed the questionnaire while the
researcher was in class so she could provide answers to questions raised about
the content of the questionnaire. As stated in the discussion of the instrument,
the completion of the questionnaire took a maximum of twenty minutes. The
Ieamers were all of the same age group, fifteen to seventeen years old. The
number of participants per school varied, depending on whether or not it was a
former DET, Model C or Afrikaans medium school. The numbers were highest at
DET schools and lowest at former Afrikaans and English only schools. In fact,
the highest number of participants, forty-three, was at school MA, a former DET,
and the lowest, fourteen, at VC, a former white only Afrikaans medium school.

This study focused on high schools because Ieamers at high school are
on the brink of post-school and career choices. The impact that their language
choice has on their career paths cannot be underestimated. Further, high school
Ieamers might be able to articulate their choice of LOLT to principals and
governing body chairs better than primary school pupils. Also as in the case of
the Mparutsa, Thondhlana and Crawhall study, this group of Ieamers are the first
“post independence generation and it was expected that they would have
intemalised some of the changes in the curricula“ (1992,p.236).
Claflm @grvgtions

At each school, two classes were observed once a week over a period of
five weeks, one language and one science or mathematics class. During the first

two visits the researcher did not take written notes. The reason for this was to

68

minimize the chances of rehearsals by the teachers being observed. Rehearsals
refer to the possibility of teachers preparing for a presentation for what they might
think the observer expected of them. Further, note-taking on the first day might
have caused too much distraction since the mere presence of the observer was
in itself a distraction. By the third visit the researcher hoped to have established
a rapport with the class and the teachers to have her presence cause little
distraction to the natural flow of lessons. Only from the third visit therefore, did
the observer take notes focusing on language use in class for instruction and
between teachers and Ieamers and among Ieamers. A total of fourteen teachers

were observed, two from each school. The distribution of subject per teacher

was as follows:

Setswana: 01 Afrikaans: 02 Mathematics: 03
English: 04 Physical Science: 03 Biology: 01
Marcus AM "as

The researcher observed Assembly, a gathering of the entire school
where all important announcements are made and devotion is conducted.
Schools conducted Assembly on at least three days a week, Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays. The procedures differed from one school to another.
Some schools had Ieamers, teachers, and priests conduct Assembly by leading
in prayers, Scripture readings and chanting of hymns. Other schools restricted
the conducting of Assembly to teachers and/or Ieamers. The time of the
Assembly was determined by individual school policy. At schools MA - MC,

teachers and Ieamers led morning devotion and made announcements. Also at

69

school MC, Ieamers were allowed to present topical issues such as AIDS and
drug abuse through short plays or brief oral presentations. At V-schools,
teachers led Assembly except when there was a priest from one of the local
churches. Teachers made important announcements including introducing the
researcher at her first Assembly attendance.

Other extra-curricula activities that were observed included school choir
practice at school MA. Music practice was done in preparation for the annual
school music competitions. Practice was done twice a week from 2pm to 4pm,
Tuesdays and Wednesdays. At all other schools except VB and VC, sports
activities such as soccer, basketball and choir practice were observed. VB did
not have any sports activities and at VC, African Ieamers did not take part in
school sports. Given the racial tensions in this school, the researcher did not
consider observing the white only sports teams.

Non-curricula activities

The researcher observed three SGB elections at schools MB, MC and VA.
The elections were scheduled on March 03, 2000 at 7pm for school MB, March
16, 2000, at 6pm for school MC, and March 20, 2000 from 10am to 8pm for
school VA. At MA, a PTSA meeting was observed on March 18, 2000. The
meeting was held on a Saturday so that parents who lived far from the school
and those who work during the week could attend.

Field notes were taken at all events.

70

Procedures

The researcher distributed the questionnaires to Ieamers and collected
them. The questionnaires were completed in class while the researcher was
present to answer any questions or clarify any point in the questionnaire.
Teachers received the questionnaires during tea break and completed them in
the staff room. However, the rate of retum was very low.

Interviews with teachers took place after the fifth classroom observation.
These interviews took place either in the staff room or in the teacher’s office. At
scth MB, a special room was set aside by the principal for the interviews.

Interviews with parents took place either at school or at the parents’
homes, according to their preference. The researcher approached some parents
at the SGB and PTSA meetings and scheduled appointments with those that
wanted to be interviewed at home and conducted interviews after the meetings
with those who preferred to be interviewed at the school on the day of the
meetings. Other parents were approached at church or in their homes to request
interviews.

Assembly or morning devotion was observed at all schools on the days
that the researcher visited each school if it was a day for Assembly. At least one
PTSA meeting was observed at school MA and three SGB elections at MB, MC
and VA. At least one Wednesday afternoon at each school was devoted to
observing extra-curricula activities. At VD end of term activities were observed.
Field notes were taken at each activity except Assembly. It would have been

improper to take written notes during a religious activity.

71

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The principal aim of this study was to investigate the language practices
and attitudes of high school Ieamers, teachers and parents and their views on
South Africa’s new Language in Education Policy (LIEP). As mentioned earlier,
the LIEP is the outgrowth of South Africa’s effort at practical implementation of
the country's new democratic Constitutional Language Policy of eleven official
languages. Data gathering was conducted in seven schools in the Mafikeng and
Vryburg districts of the North West Province, over a period often weeks from
January 24 to March 31, 2000.

Two methodologies were used in this study: 1) survey questionnaires for
teachers and Ieamers; most administered in writing, some administered orally;
and 2) on-site observations of classroom teaching and Ieaming, extra-curricula
and non-curricula activities. The survey questionnaire was administered orally
to twenty parents to avoid any response problems caused by parents with limited
or no formal literacy. Fourteen teachers representing the seven schools were
selected for classroom observation. Non-curricula activities, such as elections of
three School Governing Bodies (SGB’S) and one Parent-Teacher-Student-
Association (PTSA) meeting were also observed. Extra-curricula activities that
were observed included Assembly, choir practice and sports training.

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The major issues analyzed in the survey data were the following:

1) the languages that participants preferred as subjects;

72

2) the languages preferred as LOLT’s;
3) the languages of preference for extra-curricula and non-curricula
activities; and

4) opinions and observations about the new LIEP.

LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS
Which Ianguagels would you like your school to teach as subjects and

why?

This question was meant to elicit information about the participants’
preferences forlanguages as subjects and the reasons for their preferences.
The participants were given the following language choices: the four most
dominant languages in the Province, Setswana, English, Afrikaans, IsiXhosa,
and an “other“ category in which they could list any other language/s they
preferred. The number of choices made was not limited to one language;
therefore participants could choose as many languages as they wanted. The

following tables represent the responses to this question:

TABLE 2.1a
LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS PREFERRED: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N = 109
Language Respondents Percentage
”SFSWANA 17 15%
“Emir—SH 37 35%
filKAANS 19 18%
mm 25F 23%

 

73

 

 

TABLE 2. 1 a (COM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL LANGUAGES 02 02%

FOREIGN LANGUAGE 32 30%

NO RESPONSE 00 00

TABLE 2.1b

LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS NOT PREFERRED: Learners

N = 62

Language Respondents Percentage

SETSWANA 13 21%

ENGLISH 00 00%

AFRIKAANS 16 26%

S. AFRICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES 32 52%

TABLE 2. 2: Teachers

LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS PREFERRED: Teachers

N= 22

Language Respondents Percentage
S—ETSWANA 16 73%
WGLISH W 77%
‘A'PTRiKAANS 11 50%
m 05 23%
WWUAcTES 02 9%
W 01 5%

 

 

 

 

74

 

TABLE 2. 3: Parents
LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS PREFERRED: Parents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N= 20

Language Respondents Permntage
—SE_T"SWANA 13 65%

ENGLISH 16 60%
WKAANS 15 75%
mm 11 55%
m 00 00
TOTE—SPONSE 00 00

 

 

 

 

 

The participants’ preferences, as reflected by the tables, put English as
the most preferred language to be taught. Of the 52 Ieamers who responded to
the question of languages they do not prefer as subjects, none chose English as
a subject they would not prefer. An interesting diflerence comes with the second
preferred language. The majority of Ieamers chose French, the teachers chose
Setswana and the parents Chose Afrikaans. Interestingly, no parent chose a
foreign language as a preferred subject.

The following are tables reflecting the reasons provided by participants for

their preferences of languages as subjects:

75

TABLE 3. 1.a

REASONS FOR PREFERRING LANGUAGES AS SUBJECTS: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SET SWANA
03
1. Mother tongue
03
2. Teach others who don’t know it
02
3. Dominant Ianggge in school and Province
04
4. Pride in own langfle
ENGLISH
20
1. Most commme Spoken and used language in the school, Province,
country and world
06
2. Everybody needs to know English
03
3. Job opportunities
02
4. Needtoknowmorethan one language
02
5. Other (teach others, best language)
AFRIKAANS
09
1. Mother tongue
2. Communicate with monolingual Afrikaans speakers
02
3. LOLT
02
4. Former white school
SOUTH AFRICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES
1. Home Isome—
02
2. Give other langfies a chance
04
3. Understand Speakers of other langfles
01
4. Pride in language
06
5. Other

 

 

76

 

(TABLE 3.1. acon't)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

07
1. Aesthetic (fun. romantic. sexy)

13
2. Travel abroad

04
3. Need to know other law

01

_4. Learn culture and history of other pegple

5. French: widely spoken language 02

12
NO RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3. 1.b
REASONS FOR LANGUAGES NOT PREFERRED AS SUBJECTS: Learner!
SETSWANA

 

01
1. Does not support ability to learn English

 

01
2. Not everyone’s L1

 

3. Limited/doesn‘t take you anywhere

 

03
4. Difficult to write

 

01
5.Notacceptableatpreviousschool

 

01

 

 

8. Prefer Egggsh

 

 

AF RIKAANS

 

1. Dislike

 

2. Difficult

 

01
3. Most people understand and speak it

 

4. Not important/useless 03

 

01

 

 

5. Limited to South Africa

 

 

SOUTH AFRICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

 

01
1. Not important

 

15

 

 

2. Difficult

 

 

77

TABLE 3. 2
REASONS FOR PREFERRING LANGUAGE AS SUBJECT: Teachers
SETSWANA

 

1. DemandfromSetswanaL1 parents

01

 

2. Everyone must have a chance to learn an indigenous language

01

 

05

 

3. Dominant We in school and Province

 

4. Leamers must know their om, laws and culture

02

 

 

 

5. Instill Iaguge pride in Ieamers

 

01

 

ENGLISH

 

1.MustbeusedaSL1inthewholeschool

01

 

2. Must be used as L1 for English stream Ieamers

01

 

3. Need to know more than one language

02

 

 

4. Most commme used language in the school, Province, country and
world

 

 

01

 

SETSWANA, AFRIKAANS, ENGLISH

 

 

Solloolrggfle policy

 

01

 

SOUTH AFRICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

 

1. Home 18%

01

 

2. Give other langggcs a chance

01

 

 

3. Easy to learn and Close to leamers‘ L1

 

 

01

 

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

 

 

French: Second most widely spoken language

 

01

 

 

NO RESPONSE:

78

01

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3. 3.
REASONS FOR LANGUAGE AS SUBJECT PREFERENCE: Parents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SETSWANA

1. Mother tongue 06
2. Dominant language in school and Province 02
ENGLISH

1. Changing circumstances demand command of English 01
2. Job opportunities 02
3. Needtoknowmorethanonelanguage 01
AFRIKAANS

1. Job opportunities 02
2. Most common language after English 02
3.Leamersneedtoknowmorethanonelanguage 01
4. Children don't understand English that well 01
5. Mother tongue 01
SOUTH AFRICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

1. Easy to acquire/closest to L1 01
2. Location of school 01
3. Any, depending on resources 01
4. Home languages are important 01

 

 

The above tables Show an abridged and translated version of participants’
reasons for their choices of languages as subjects. Since some of the reasons
were in Afrikaans and/or Setswana, the researcher translated them into English
so as to group Similar reasons together. A great effort was put into representing
the reasons as Closely and as accurately as possible. The following discussion is

a summary of languages preferred as subjects and reasons for preference.

79

 

 

 

 

 

1 .1. English

English was the most preferred language as subject across all
participants; thirty-five percent Ieamers, seventy-seven percent teachers and
eighty percent parents. The most common reason given by Ieamers was that
English was “the most commonly used language at school, in the Province, and
in the world.“ The reason for English as providing job opporhlnities was given in
both the Ieamer and the parent lists of reasons. Another common reason across
all three groups was that there was a need to know more than one language.
The Choice of English as preferred language as a subject reveals the historical
and current importance and value placed on English competence. English
remains the dominant language as a subject and LOLT. All seven schools
involved in this study offer English as a language. The Provincial government
also uses English more than any other language to communicate with the people
in the Province. The discussions in the Provincial Legislature are conducted in
English. The researcher attended the opening of the Provincial Parliament in
March and all proceedings were conducted in English, except for the praise
song. The reason given by the participants is therefore based on their actual
experience with the use of English in schools, in the Province and indeed in the
country. One Ieamer said that the President of the country Speaks English, and
another said that: “No one important speaks IsiXhosa.“ The irony is that the

President’s first language is IsiXhosa.

80

1. 2 Setswana

The results for Setswana differed across the three groups of participants.
Learner preferences put Setswana in fifth position at sixteen percent. Teacher
preferences placed the language second at seventy-three percent. Setswana
ranked third with parent preferences at sixty-five percent.

I The most common reason given across the three groups was that
Setswana was the most dominant language at school and in the Province.
Learners and teachers gave “pride in own language“ as another reason for their
preference. Parents and Ieamers gave the “mother tongue“ reason. Teachers
also said that Ieamers must know their origin, language and culture.

As Verhoef (1997) observed in her study of Ieamers in the North West
Province, there is pride and recognition of the importance of indigenous
languages. Although these languages were not highly placed by all participants,
their importance was acknowledged. Teachers also recognized that Setswana
was the most common language in the Province and therefore it would be
practical to offer it as a language as a subject.

1.3 Afrikaans

Like Setswana, the position of Afrikaans differed across the three groups.
The language was placed fourth with Ieamer preferences at eighteen percent.
Teacher preferences put it in the third place Wifl’l fifty percent, and parents
second with seventy-five percent. The three most common reasons given by
Ieamers are that Afrikaans is mother tongue to some Ieamers, that it is the

school LOLT, and that the school/S was formerly white. Teachers also stated

81

that the school/S was Afrikaans medium. Parents provided the “mother tongue“
reason and also that Afrikaans provided job opportunities and a chance to Ieam
another language.

1.4 South African Indigenous Languages

Learner preferences placed South African indigenous languages other
than Setswana at position three with twenty-three percent. The languages were
placed fourth in both teacher and parent preferences, at twenty-three percent
and fifty-five percent respectively.

The most common reason across all three groups was that home
languages are important. The other reason provided by Ieamers was that
learning indigenous languages wouldl help them understand speakers of other
languages. Both teachers and Ieamers stated that other languages must be
given a chance, not just those that are dominant in the Province. Teachers and
parents stated that indigenous languages were easy to acquire because they
were close to the leamers’ home languages.

1.5 Foreign languages

Learner preferences put foreign languages at second position with thirty
percent. These languages were placed at fifth position by teacher preferences,
(nine percent). Foreign languages were not chosen by parents at all.

The only reason provided by teachers was that French was a widely
spoken language. Learners also stated this reason. The most common reason
provided by Ieamers was travel, and the second was the beauty of the foreign

languages, especially French.

82

Learners who chose languages they did not prefer ranked South African
indigenous languages, especially IsiXhosa, as the least preferred (fifty-two
percent), Afrikaans as second (twenty-six percent) and Setswana (twenty-one
percent) third. The reasons cited were that the languages were difficult and
Setswana in particular was not required in (some) former primary schools.

The above summary shows that English is the only language preferred as
a subject that does not raise differences of ranking across all groups. Although
the reasons provided differ slightly from one group to another, the choice of the
language is unanimous. The main difference in preference is perhaps in
Setswana, Afrikaans and foreign languages. Learner preferences reflect a
major bias towards foreign languages, especially French, whereas parents prefer
Afrikaans and teachers Setswana. This difference of Choice can be partly
attributed to the history of language in education policy in South Africa as
illustrated in Chapter I. After the 1976 uprisings, although Afrikaans was taught
as a subject in former DET schools, many Ieamers did not like it because of its
political stigma. Afrikaans was often referred to as the language of the
oppressor. But since Afrikaans was the country’s second official language, job
opportunities were enhanced by competence in the language. Parents therefore
still see the role of Afrikaans in light of increasing job opportunities for their
children. The teachers who opted for Setswana stated that Ieamers understand

subject matter better when they are taught in the first language.

83

LANGUAGES PREFERRED AS LOLT’s

Which Ianguagels would you like your school to use as LOLT’s and
why?

In apartheid South Africa, all schools for African Children had English as
LOLT. White schools could Choose beMen English and Afrikaans. The high
failure rate in matriculation (grade 12 equivalent) final examinations has been
attributed to the leamers’ poor command of English. The new LIEP allows
schools to use LOLT’S demanded by Ieamers and their parents. This question
was meant to investigate whefller or not there has been any move to use other

LOLT'S in schools apart from those used in the past

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' TABLE 4.1

LOLT’s Preferred: Learners

N= 171

Language Respondents Percentage
WSWANA 10 6%
W11 103 60%
TF—RIKAANS 14 6%
m 04 2%
WH 16 9%
WH-AFTRIKAANS 07 4%
m T? 10%

 

 

 

 

 

LOLT's Preferred: Teachers

TABLE 4. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N = 22
uage Respondents i Perwntgge
SETSWANA 01 5%
09 41%
ENGLISH fi
01 5%
AFRIKAANS
SET'SWA"N'A' -E' "NGLISH 02 9%
m 04 16%
WH-AF‘RIKAANSL 03 14%
AFRIKAANS-SETSWANA 01 W
m 01 5%
TABLE 4. 3
LOLT's Preferred: Parents
N = 20
Language Respondents Percentage
"SETSWNA 00 00%
_EN—GFSH 17 65%
filKAANS 02 10%
WH 01 W
WH 00 00%
Tsifsw—ANATITELTSHTFRIKAANT 00 00%
m 00 00%

 

 

 

 

English ranked highest as a preferred LOLT across all three groups of

participants. Learner preferences made both English and Setswana medium

85

 

 

second, whereas teacher choice made English and Afrikaans second. As for
parent preferences, Afrikaans was ranked second, and none chose Setswana at
all. The parents’ preference for English was 17 out of 20, or 85%.

The following tables represent reasons provided by participants for their

preferences of LOLT/S:

TABLE 5. 1.
REASONS FOR LANGUAGES PREFERRED AS LOLT'S: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SETSWANA

07
1. Easy to understand/Image in which I‘m most competent

01
2. Important langu_age

02
3. Most common 1811MB in area

02
4. Pride in own 180M:
ENGLISH

07
1. Want to be competent In English

25
2. Easy to understand

06
3. To communicate with Speakers of other langgges

02
4. Most publications are in English

07
5. Best language/like the language

01
6. Travel abroad

03
7. Job opportunities

01
8. Mother tongue

19
9. Mostcornmonly spoken and used language at school, in Province,
country and the world

03
10. Must use at school/right thing to do

 

 

 

86

TABLE 5.1 (con’t)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AF RIKAANS
1. English 8 Afrikaans medium school 01
2. Former white school 01
3. Started school in Afrikaans 01
4. Mother tongue 09
5. Personal preference/wantto knmthelw O1
6. More developed langu_age O1
7. School LOLT 02
AF RIKAANS-ENGLISH
1. Competent in both langu_ages 01
2. In a white school 01
3. LOLT at school 01
SET SWANA-AF RIKAANS
L For all to understand and improve competence in both brim ] 01
SETSWANA-ENGLISH
1. Each Iagguge must be taught througgits own medium 01
, 2. Both laggggges are easy to understand 02
3. Teacher preference O1
4. Like both langfles 02
5. Code-mixilllin both law is common in hometown O1
6. Pride in L1 and jobs through English 02
SETSWANA-ENGLISH-AFRIKAANS
1. To accommodate all Ieamers 05
2.Sowecanleammorethanonelangfle O4

 

 

 

 

 

NO RESPONSE 35

87

TABLE 5. 2
REASONS FOR LOLT PREFERENCE: Teachers
SETSWANA

 

 

Mother tongue for majority of Ieamers

 

02

 

ENGLISH

 

1. Everybody needs to know English

01

 

2. Job opportunities

 

3. Textbooks are written in English

01

 

 

4. Most commonly used language in the school, Province, country and
world

 

 

AFRIKAANS

 

 

Afrikaans medium school

 

01

 

AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH

 

 

Most Ieamers understand one of the two languages

 

02

 

SETSWANA-ENGLISH

 

1. To make Ieamers able to communicate with Speakers of other
languages

01

 

 

2. To curb underachievement by using Setswana, English for wider use

 

01

 

SETSWANA-ENGLISH—AFRIKAANS

 

1. Each language must be taught through its own medium

01

 

 

2. Use any language that wiTI maximize participation and
Understandig

 

01

 

NO RESPONSE

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5. 3
REASONS FOR LOLT PREFERENCE: Parents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SETSWANA

00
ENGLISH
1. Learners understand easily when taught through ESL 05
2. Job opportunities 02
3. Needtoknowmorethanonelanguage 01
4. Most commme used language in the school, Province, country and 08

world

 

”5. Teaching and Ieaming materials are in English

 

 

01

 

AF RIKAANS

 

1. Mothertongue

01

 

2. Job opportunities

 

01

 

AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH

 

Colored children must be taught in Afrikaans, and English for all other
children

 

01

 

The reasons provided by participants were diverse and many. The tables above
were an attempt to represent all the reasons given. English seemed to elicit the
most reasons than any of the other languages. The following discussion is a

summary of the LOLT preferences and the reasons given for the preferences.

2.1 English

As was the case with languages as subjects, all three groups of participants

chose English as the preferred LOLT: Ieamers Sixty percent, teachers forty-one

percent and parents eighty-five percent.

89

 

 

 

 

The three most common reasons stated by all groups were that: 1) English is
the most commonly used language at school, in the Province and in the world, 2)
English provides job opportunities, and, 3) most publications are in English.
Parents and Ieamers also stated that for Ieamers, English was an easy language
to understand. Given that English was the official LOLT at Six of the seven
schools, the preferences were not completely unpredictable. However, even at
school VA, a Colored Afrikaans medium school, there were some Ieamers who
preferred English as LOLT. The third reason given that is different from those
given for English as subject is that publications are in English.

2. 2. Setswana

Six percent of Ieamers Chose Setswana, placing the language at fourth
position, and five percent of the teachers put the language at fifth position along
with Setswana. None of the parents chose Setswana as preferred LOLT. As a
result of this ranking, teachers gave only one reason for Setswana, mother
tongue of some learners. Learners stated that it was easy to understand when
they were taught in Setswana. They also cited pride in their language and that
the language was the most common in the area as two reasons for their choice.
Learners at school VD in particular stressed the importance of using Setswana to
facilitate understanding. The fact that parents did not chose Setswana might be
attributed to their belief that English and Afrikaans are still the gateway to job

opportunities for their children.

2.3 Afrikaans

Learner preferences placed Afrikaans at third position with eight percent,
teachers at fifth position along with Setswana (by five percent), and parents at
second position (ten percent).

The teacher who Chose Afrikaans as preferred LOLT gave only one
reason for the choice, that the school was Afrikaans medium. Two Ieamers also
used the same reason. Both parents and Ieamers Cited mother tongue as a
reason for their choice. Other reasons that Ieamers gave were that the school/s
was former white, the LOLT’S were Afrikaans and English and that some of them
began their education in Afrikaans. Parents stated job opportunities and that
Afrikaans was the second most cOmmon language in the country after English,
they still believe that both languages are a gateway to jobs for their children.
However, Ieamers and teachers know that there is a Choice between Afrikaans
and English with regard to access to jobs and that English is more likely to yield
more job opportunities than Afrikaans. In the North West Province, most
businesses are still owned by white Afrikaners; therefore the parents’ preference
for Afrikaans reveals this bias.

2. 4 Setswana and English
This is a second place position by Ieamers at nine percent. Teachers
placed the option at position four with nine percent. Parents did not choose
this option as preferred LOLT.
Learners gave more reasons than teachers for this option. The two main

reasons teachers gave were that Ieamers need to communicate with others,

91

and that Setswana will maximize understanding and English would be used
for wider communication. Learners stated competence in both languages,
teacher preferences, they liked the languages and that code mixing in both
languages was common in the town. In former DET schools in particular, the
unofficial use of Setswana and English as dual medium was common.
Teachers recognized the importance of Ieamers mastering the language of
central examinations but also acknowledged the fact that mother tongue
facilitates Ieaming.

2. 5 English and Afrikaans

Learners placed this option at fifth position by only two percent but

teachers put it at second place by eighteen percent. Both teachers and
Ieamers stated that Ieamers understood both languages, and Ieamers further
said that the school was white and the two languages were school LOLT’S.
This is true mainly for MB, a dual medium school and VC, a parallel medium
school were the Afrikaans teacher in particular used English to help the
Ieamers understand the Afrikaans texts. Although VC is a parallel medium
school, and MA and VD are English medium, teachers recognized the
importance of using languages other than the official LOLT’S to help the
Ieamers to understand subject matter.

2. 6 Setswana, English and Afrikaans.
Although only four percent of the Ieamers chose this option, fourteen percent

of the teachers chose it, ranking it in third place. Learners stated that the three

medium policy was determined by the school and teachers said that any

92

language should be used to teach to maximize Ieaming. This use of a multiple
language approach, although rare in the seven schools, is the ideal that the new
LIEP is striving for. For three language policy schools such as the former DET
schools, the use of a number of languages will be easy to execute since most
Ieamers come to school competent in at least two local languages.

The results presented above Show that there is a common inclination towards
English as a preferred LOLT. The differences become visible with the second
position languages. While Ieamers prefer Setswana and English, teachers chose
Afrikaans and English, and parents Chose Afrikaans. The most noticeable
distinction among the three groups is that parents did not opt for Setswana as
LOLT. This difference reflects the inherent common groUnd between teachers
and Ieamers that parents do not share. Learners and teachers are in the actual
site of teaching and Ieaming, and they usually know what strategies are more
effective than others, and this influences their options and brings their Choices
closer. The use of different languages even at experimental level is a good Sign
that a multilingual policy is possible in schools. The changes effected especially
by schools MA and VC, even though they are limited, are a Sign that the

principles set out in the LIEP document can be realized.

93

LANGUAGE PREFERENCES FOR EXTRA-CURRICULA AND
NON-CURRICULA ACTMTIES
Which languages would you like your school to use for the following

activities; Assembly, sports, PTSA meetings, and letters to parents?

This question was meant to elicit responses about language choices and
preferences for wider communication at school for extra-curricula and non-
curricula activities. The two activities Chosen for this presentation and analysis of
data are Assembly and letters to parents. All public schools in South Africa have
morning devotions where important announcements are made to the entire
school and some form of Christian worship, such as singing hymns, saying
prayers and reading the Scripture, is performed before announcements are
made.

Letters to parents are an important part of the schools’ communication
with the communities. These letters include invitations to meetings, information
about changes made in the schools, requests for permission to take children on
educational excursions, reminders for payment of school fees, or any other

reasons the schools may have to communicate with parents.

94

TABLE 6. 1.a
Languages preferred for extra-curricula activities: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N = 171
Asecmgly
W Respondents Percentage
SETSWANA 14 6%
ENGLISH 107L 63%
AFRIKAANS 06 4%
AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH 06 4%
SETSWANA-ENGLISH 19 11%
WANNENGLTSH-AFRIKAANS 02 1%
No RESPONSE 17 10%
TABLE 6. 1.b
Letters to Parents
Language Respondents Percentage
m 4'7 27%
ENGF‘SH 74 43%
TFRTKAANS 14 8%
"SETSWANA-ENGLISH 10 6%
‘TAF‘RTKTATSWITSH 08 5%
04 3%
SETSWANA-ENGLISH-AFRIKAANS
i'SOUTH AFRICAN INDIGENOLE 02 1%
LANGUAGES
No RESPONSE 12 6%

 

 

 

 

 

95

TABLE 8. 2. a

Languages preferred for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities: Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N - 22
my:
Lagguage Responfints Percentage
SETSWANA 00 00%
"ENGUSH a? 23%
WRIKAANS 03 14%
WKAATS-EN‘GTISH 0’7 32%
WH 07 32%
WHAF‘RIKAANS 02 9%
NO RESPOSNSE 00 00%
TABLE 6. 2.b
Letters to Parents
€3wa NW“ 182“”?
"ENG—LISH 05 23%
“TIP—RIKAANS 03 14%
WH 06 27%
SETSWANA-ENGLISH 02 9%
WHAF'RIKAANS ' 02 9%
mam—~55 00 00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8. 3. a

Languages prefened for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities: Parents
N = 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assemny

Language Respondents Percentagi
' S—ET-SWM'ANA' 06 30%
m 04 20%
WKAANS 05 25%
WH 05 25%

SETSWANA-ENGLISH 00 00%
WET—SMI—NAZETGL—ISH-AF—RI KAANS 00 00%
TIC—W 00 005

TABLE 6. 3.b

gm to Parents

Language Respondents Percentage

s'E"‘Tsw' ANA 08 40%
WH 05 25%
WRIKAANS 04 20%
TF'RI—KAAN—S-EN—GLISH 00 00%
SeT‘SWANA-ENGLEH 03 15%
WLISH-AF—Rl KAAN5
W 00 00%

 

 

 

 

 

The following tables represent the reasons that participants gave for

languages they preferred for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities:

97

 

TABLE 7. 1. 3
REASONS FOR PREFERRED LANGUAGES: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly
SET SWANA
1. Understand best in Setswana 15
2. Mother tongue of most Ieamers 03
3. Mom preferred by Ieamers 02
4. Protect Ieamers with limited English 02
5. Everybody must learn it 01
ENGLISH
1. Easy to understand 39
2. Most commonly spoken and used language 10
3. Increase opportunities for proficiency 12
4. English medium school 05
5. Other (personal preference, language of priests) 04
AF RIKAANS
l [0

SETSWANA-ENGLISH
1. Accommodate all Ieamers 03
2. Personal preference O1
3. Both lagges are LOLT 01
AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH

So that everyone can understand 02

 

 

 

NO RESPONSE

98

71

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7. 1. b

Letters to grants: Learners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SETSWANA

1. Not allparentsknowEngliSh 15
2. Not all parents are educated 08
3. Most commme used language 08
4. So that parents can understand 06
5. Other ( do notTike English) 01
ENGLISH

1. Parents understand English 22
2. Most commme used language 07
3. EnEISh medium school 05
4. So that parents can Ieam English 03
5. Most parents are educated 01
AF RI KAANS

Mother tongue 01
SETSWANA-ENGLISH

To accommodate all parents 01
AF RIKAANS-ENGLISH

1. English and Afrikaans medium school 01
2.Togiveparentsalanguageoption 01
ALL LANGUAGES PREFERRED

1.Dependsonthelanguageoftheparent 04
2. Accommodate Speakers of other languages 02

 

 

3. To represent the languages of Ieamers

 

01

 

NO RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7. 2. a

REASONS FOR LANGUAGEIS PREFERRED: Teachers
Assembly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SETSWANA

00
ENGLISH
1. Most commme Spoken and used language 04
2. Improve competence in English 01
AFRIKAANS
1. Learners speak Afrikaans 03
2. Language of community 02
AFRI:K_AANS-ENGLISH
1. Staff members are both English and Afrikaans Speaking 02
2. School policy 01
SETSWANA-ENGLISH
1.Two Ianguagesthatmostleamersknow 04
2. Bothleamers and teachersfeelatease usingbothlanguages 03
NO RESPONSE

02

TABLE 7. 2. 0
Letters to Parents: Teachers
SETSWANA
1. Not all parents understand English 01
2. L1 of m parents 02
3. Most members of the community are iiiterate (i.e. meaning not literate 01
in English)
ENGLISH
Most commme understood language 05

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7.2. b (con’t.)

AFRIKAANS

 

 

Language most understood by parents

 

 

SETSWANA-ENGLISH

 

 

To accommodate all parents

 

 

AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH

 

1.SchoI policy

01

 

2. Mostparentsknowonlythesetwolanguages

01

 

3. Languages spoken by teachers

01

 

 

4. Parents speak either or both languages

 

 

ALL LANGUAGES

 

 

To accommodate all parents

 

02

 

TABLE 7. 3. 8
REASONS FOR LANGUAGES PREFERRED: Parent
Assemm
SETSWANA

 

1.Easytounderstand

01

 

2. Religious activities best carried out in L1

 

 

3. Dominant language in school

 

 

ENGLISH

 

 

Most commme spoken and used language

 

 

AFRIKAANS

 

1. Language of community

 

 

2. Teachers’ choice

 

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7.3.a (con’t)

 

 

 

AFRIKAANS-ENGLISH
1. To accommodate everybody/avoid communication breakdown 04
2. Priests speak both languages 01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7. 3. b
WM
SETSWANA
1. Most dominant L1 04
2. Lower grade children can read for parents 02
3. Some parents have limited literacy (i.e. meaning illiterate in English) 02
ENGLISH
1. Most parents understand English 03
2. Setswana only might exclude some parents 01
AF RIKAANS
1. Language most understood by parents 03
2. Lower grades children can read for parents 01
SETSWANA-ENGLISH
1. To accommodate all parents 02
2. Give parents language options 01
NO RESPONSE 01

The two main activities chosen for this question were Assembly and letters
to parents. Both activities were chosen because they were the most common

among all schools. For instance, not all schools have sports activities, but all

102

schools have Assembly and write letters to parents at one point or the other
during school terms.

3.1 Assembly

3.1 . 1 English

Sixty-three percent of Ieamers chose English as a preferred language for
Assembly, placing the language at position one in their list of options. Teacher
preferences placed English at number two by twenty-three percent, and parents
at position three by twenty percent.

The most common reason among all three groups was that English is the
most commonly used language. Another reason cited by both Ieamers and
teachers was that using English at Assembly helps to improve the Ieamers’
competence in the language. Learners also said that English was easy to
understand.

3. 1. 2 Setswana

Setswana was the third option for Ieamers by eight percent and first for
parents by thirty percent. Teachers did not choose the language for Assembly.
Fifteen of the learner respondents said that Setswana was the language they
understood best Parents also said that Ieamers understand best in Setswana
and that the language was the leamers’ mother tongue. Since Ieamers at some
schools also participate in leading Assembly, some of them said that Setswana is
the language they prefer to use at Assembly. Two Ieamers even said that the

language is used “to protect Ieamers with limited English.“

103

3. 1. 3 Afrikaans

Four percent of the Ieamers Chose Afrikaans placing the option at number
four, tied with the Afrikaans and English option. Teacher preferences put
Afrikaans at third position by fourteen percent, and the language was placed
second by 25% of parent preferences.

There were no reasons given for the leamers’ choice. Both parents and
teachers stated that Afrikaans was the language of the community. Teachers
also said that Ieamers spoke the language and parents said teachers determined
the language of use for Assembly.

3.1.4 Setswana and English

Eleven percent of the Ieamers chose the use of both languages and made
the option third on their list. This option was first position for teachers since
thirty-two percent Chose it along with Afrikaans-English option. None of the
parents chose this option.

Both teachers and Ieamers said the two languages are the ones Ieamers
know best. Teachers also said that both teachers and Ieamers feel comfortable
using these languages.

3. 1. 5 Afrikaans and English

Only four percent of the Ieamers Chose this option, the fourth in the list of
preferences. Teacher preferences placed this option at number one by thirty-two
percent. Twenty-five percent of the parents chose Afrikaans and English, second
position in their options.

104

Learners and parents stated that the two languages accommodated all
Ieamers. Teachers said that staff members were both Afrikaans and English
speaking, and also that the option was school policy.

3.2 Letters to parents
3.2.1 English

Learners placed English first (forty-three percent), teachers (twenty-three
percent) and parents (twenty-five percent) placed it second. The most common
reason Cited by all groups was that English is the most commonly used
language. Twenty-two Ieamers stated that parents understood English. Both
Ieamers and teachers said that the use of English would help parents learn or
improve their competence in the language.

3. 2. 2 Setswana

Setswana was placed first by parent preferences at forty percent.
Eighteen percent of the teachers Chose the language, placing it at third position.

All three groups Cited the example of limited literacy as a reason for using
Setswana. It should be noted here that participants equated literacy with
competence in English. So, what was referred to as “not educated“ and
“illiterate“ actually meant “not competent in English.“ Both teachers and parents
said that the language was the most dominant L1. One teacher said that “ Most
members of the community are illiterate,“ and eight Ieamers said that not all
parents were educated. One teacher and fifteen Ieamers said that not all parents

understand English.

105

3.2. 3 Afrikaans

Afrikaans was placed third position by both Ieamer preferences and parent
preferences, eight percent and twenty percent respectively. Fourteen percent of
the teachers chose Afrikaans placing the option at number four. Learners stated
mother tongue as a reason for their choice and both parents and teachers said
that Afrikaans was the language understood by most parents.
3.2.4 Afrikaans and English

Only Ieamers and teachers Chose this option, five percent and fifth
position for Ieamers, and twenty-seven percent and first position for teachers.
The main reasons given by both Ieamers and teachers was that the school/s was
English and Afrikaans medium and that parents understood either or both of the
two languages.
3.2.5 Setswana and English

This option was placed fourth by learner preference and parent
preferences, six percent and fifteen percent respectively. Nine percent of the
teachers chose the option placing it at number five. All three groups said that
the option would accommodate all parents.
3.2.6 All languages
Seven Ieamers and two teachers said that all parents should be accommodated

by the use of all languages that parents prefer and use.

106

OPINIONS ON THE NEW LIEP

In the final part of the survey the participants were requested to give their
opinion about the new Language in Education policy. A total of one hundred and
nine Ieamers responded to the question, sixty-two did not respond. Fifly- nine
Ieamers were supportive of the new policy, forty-nine were not supportive and
one was neutral. The Ieamers that supported the policy said it would give them
the opportunity to make their own choice of LOLT’s and languages as subjects.
Some Ieamers also said that the new LIEP would help them substitute Afrikaans
for other languages. The Ieamers who were not supportive of the policy said too
many languages would result in high failure rates, and that there would not be
enough teachers to teach different languages. Of the twenty-two teachers
involved in the study, two did not respond and one said he did not have any idea
about the new LIEP. Nine teachers said they believed the policy would work but
ten were not supportive. All twenty parents responded to this question. Three
parents were non- supportive and twelve were supportive. One said successful
implementation depended on the level of commitment from government but that
English was a must. A summary of the results is presented below:

TABLE 8: Opinions on LIEP

 

 

 

 

Supportive Non-supportive No response
Learners 59 49 62 + *
Teachers 09 10 03
Parents 17 03 00

 

 

 

 

“Neutral (the department should decide) 01

107

 

Supportive Comments

The following comments were made by participants who were supportive
of the new LIEP and thought that it would work:
Learners:
1. It is important that Ieamers be given a choice of languages, and numbers
should determine the meeting of demands.
2. The new policy will serve the new South Africa well because of the
different racial groups.
3. African languages will take over from Afrikaans.
4. Mulitilingualism improves communication across linguistic boundaries.
5. The policy is positive, moral and it is bound to succeed.
6. School will lose African Ieamers if it doesn’t teach African languages.
was
1. The implementation of the policy is possible if the government provides
guidelines.
2. Learners must be taught that despite the importance of English, other
languages must not be undermined. —
3. The number of demands made must determine language policy in
schools, and demands must be met.
4. Every school must teach at least one indigenous language, Ieamers are

very adaptable.

108

5. English must be taught for its international status, but indigenous
languages must be promoted and protected to preserve the origin of the people.
6. There Should be more commitment from the government, the policy is
possible since the three language policy has worked, also the dominant regional
languages can be taught at all schools in the region.

Eating

1. All children must be taught in their mother tongue to ensure deep insight
into subject matter.

2. Mother tongue must be taken to the school and extended.

3. Learner choice must be met at all cost, and the government must live up
to its promises.

4. Available teachers must be used to maximize resources.

5. English is not readily accessible to the masses.

Non-supportive comments:

Learners:

1. English should be the only LOLT because post-scth education requires
English.

2. The demand of English is too high; so other languages will not be Chosen.
3. Too many languages will result in high failure rate, so only one or two
languages, preferably English and Afrikaans, should be used as LOLT.

4. There will be a problem of finding teachers.

109

Teachfl:

1. Single medium is more practical and English provides job opportunities.
2. English and Afrikaans are more pragmatic options, providing for four or
more languages would be cumbersome.

3. English should be the only LOLT because it accommodates everybody,
more English teachers should be trained.

4. Parental demands for English will put indigenous languages at a
disadvantage.

5. The policy is not practical, the department puts too many stumbling blocks
and bureaucracy in the implementation of the policy.

Parents:

1. The policy is not practical because non-dominant languages will not be
easy to use as LOLT.

2. The policy is short-term and not cost-effective.

The responses given by participants to this part of the survey were
Characterized by supportive or non-supportive opinions. Learners who were
supportive of the new policy said that choice of language of education was a
right. They all said that options would increase their opportunities to learn other
languages, help them communicate across language barriers, and promote and
preserve the language, history and culture of indigenous people. Some Ieamers
said that the use of mother tongue would improve their chance of academic

success.

110

Learners who were non-supportive of the policy said that many languages
would result in high failure rate, the demand for English was too high, there
would also be problems of finding teachers to teach the different languages, and
that English only or English and Afrikaans only Should be used as LOLT.

The teachers who were supportive of the policy said that there was a need
to protect indigenous languages and teach children that although English is
practical as LOLT, indigenous languages are equally important. The teachers
also said the government needed to be more committed to the policy than it
appeared to be. One teacher stated:

The policy is possible with guidelines from the Ministry. Learners fare
better academically through a medium they understand well (Teacher 4)

Of the ten teachers that were not supportive of the policy, eight said the
English only medium is the best solution. The teachers said that parental
demand for English would put indigenous languages at a disadvantage. One
teacher said: “The new LIEP is mere lip service, English is the unofficial only
medium of instruction“ (Teacher 6). Another teacher (Teacher 17), said:

The policy is not practical since the Ministry of education in the Province

puts too many bureaucratic stumbling blocks in the introduction of other

languages. There are too many procedures to follow and it takes too
much time to try and introduce other languages

Only three of the twenty parents in the study were not supportive of the
new LIEP. All three parents said that the policy was neither cost- effective nor

long term. Parent 5 said non-dominant languages would be too difficult to use as

LOLT’S. Parent 20 said that the policy had serious financial implications and that

111

the ministry was already understaffed with policy experts, especially language in
education experts.

The pattern that emerges from the above responses reflects different
perspectives from Ieamers, teachers and parents. Learners seem most
concemed about educational and academic success. Teachers point to practical
implications of the Language in Education Policy in the classroom and seem
concerned with issues of implementation in terms of teaching strategies,
classroom management and curriculum design, particularly in light of insufficient
educational resources, limited textbooks, large classes, inadequate supplies and
other day-to-day, practical issues. Parents seem to view the language in
education policy issue from a more philosophical and ideological vantage point
somewhat outside the confines of the school and classroom. They locate
language issues within the broader context of social and political realities in
South Africa.

Some of the comments made by participants were:

Learners:

Schools must use English only as LOLT because universities use English
(VA 00%)schools teach many languages, there will be a high failure rate (VA 003
and MA001)

Teachers:
Taal van onderrig moet bepaal word deur die meerderheid kinders in die
skool. lndien dit bv. 4 verskillende taalgroepe in een skool is, is dit onprakties
om elke groep sy eie taal ondrrig te gee- dit raak die hoeveelheid
ondenrvysers by ‘n skool asook die handboeke. Vakhandboeke is grootliks in

Engels en Afrikaans- veral by tersiere inrigtings
(Teacher 5)

112

(LOLT must be determined by the number of Ieamers in the school. If for
example, there are 4 different language groups in one school, it will not be
practical to offer each group its own language as LOLT - this has implications
for the number of teachers at the scth as well as textbooks. Subject
textbooks are mostly in English and Afrikaans —especially at tertiary
institutions.)

Parents:

Go ka kgonega, the feeling of fieedom for using your own language is
important. Cognitive development is hampered by using a second language.
All this is because of apartheid.

(Go a kgonega = if is possible)

(Parent 16 — university graduate, high school teacher)

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

The second major methodology used in this study was classroom

observation. A total of fourteen grade ten teachers were observed over a period

often weeks, from the last week of January through the last week of March.

Each teacher was observed once a week for one school period in the same Class

for five weeks. Seven of the fourteen teachers were science and mathematics

teachers and seven were language teachers. The following table represents the

distribution of teachers per subject.

TABLE &Obsered Teacher per Subject

 

SETSWANA

ENGLISH

AF RIKAANS

MATH

SCIENCE

BIOLOGY

 

 

01

 

04

 

02

 

03

 

03

 

01

 

The main purpose of the observations was to determine what LOLT/s was

used in classrooms. The pattern that emerged from the observations can be

divided into four categories, 1) English only, 2) Setswana and English, 3)

113

 

Afrikaans and English, and 4) Setswana, English, Afrikaans and Flaaitaal ( a
variety of speech spoken in townships, usually, but not exclusively by males,
young and old, somewhat akin to U.S.Ebonics).

A total of eight teachers used only English as LOLT for all five lessons
observed. This group of teachers was not restricted to teachers from English
medium schools. One teacher was in fact from a former DET school.

One of the teachers who preferred the English only approach was
observed at school MB, an Afrikaans-English dual medium (two languages are
used interchangeably during lessons) school. She was an Afrikaans Speaking
teacher of English. She taught English First Language to a class whose home
languages ranged from, Setswana, to English to Afrikaans. In fact, the majority
of this grade ten Class was Setswana first language speakers. The first two
lessons that were observed were literature. The teacher read aloud from the text
and the Ieamers were supposed to follow in their texts. The teacher explained a
few phrases and expressions while she was reading. Only English was used in
the class. There was limited learner to learner interaction, so very little Afrikaans
or Setswana was heard even in murmurs. The third lesson was an oral
presentation by the Ieamers, and the last two were writing lessons. This teacher
did not volunteer to do the survey but she said that the Ieamers were not allowed
to do any code mixing in class because they were taking English as a First
Language.

Four teachers in the English only category said the schools where they

taught were English medium schools and therefore they were expected to teach

114

in English. Three of the teachers said they did not speak any local language,
and one teacher was Afrikaans speaking and taught at an Afrikaans English
parallel medium (two or more LOLT’S in one school, but not used
interchangeably). One of the three teachers at the two English medium schools
taught Physical Science. Although the teacher had lived in the town for over ten
years, she said she did not speak any of the local languages and could therefore
not use any in Class even if she wanted to. But her main reason for using
English only was that the school was an English medium school, so She was
following school policy. All her classes were held in the sparsely equipped
laboratory. There was very little interaction in class in spite of its small size.
Learners spoke mostly English among themselves and a few smatterings of
Setswana. The fifth lesson, which was meant to be review for the next test, was
even less interactive than any of me previous lessons.

Of the remaining three teachers who preferred the English only approach,
two taught at a former DET school and one taught at an Afrikaans medium
Colored school. Both teachers at the DET school had different mother tongues
from their Ieamers. However they spoke Setswana as a second language. The
one teacher said he felt comfortable teaching in English because his competence
in the leamers’ language was limited to conversational Setswana. In fact, the
only time he spoke Setswana to the Ieamers was when he introduced me. The
second teacher said he made a conscious effort to teach in English because his
classes were the only opportunity the Ieamers had for exposure to English. The

town was predominantly Setswana and Afrikaans; as a result some Ieamers”

115

experience of English was limited to use at school. The third teacher who also
expressed the same sentiment as the second teacher, said that although he
spoke the leamers’ language, Afrikaans, he felt that both Ieamers and teachers
needed to use English more extensively than before. He said that since
government documents were mostly in English, the school needed to extend its
language use to English.

Two of the fourteen teachers used Setswana and English in their lessons.
The one teacher was at a former DET SCth and the second teacher was at an
English medium school. The first teacher was a Physical Science teacher who
taught mostly in English but explained concepts and processes in Setswana.
She also allowed Ieamers to use Setswana when they discussed among 1
themselves, but they were to use English only when they responded to her
questions. In her survey, she also said that Ieamers needed to practice English
so that they could be able to answer questions in the end of the year
examinations that will determine promotion to the next grade.

The teacher at the English medium school who used Setswana and
English to teach her class said that she personally preferred to use Setswana
only but said that some Ieamers came from primary schools where the LOLT was
English and also that there was no option for indigenous languages. Some of
the Ieamers that took Setswana as an option did so only after they failed English
First Language. The policy of this school (MC) is that if a Ieamer fails a language
that slhe takes as L1, slhe does not get promoted to the next Class. As a result,

the teacher used English to explain concepts to Ieamers to maximize

116

understanding. In one of the five lessons observed, she gave the English
translation of “ Puosebui and Puopegelo“, the Direct Speech and the Reported
Speech. The teacher used standard Setswana in class as much as possible. In
fact, she did not use any Setswana dialect. Code switching was from standard
Setswana to standard English. The teacher said that she wanted to instill a
sense of pride in the Ieamers.

The third category to emerge from Classroom observations of the pattern
of language use was the use of Afrikaans and English as LOLT’S. Two teachers
at Afrikaans and English medium schools used this approach. Although the two
schools use both languages as LOLT’S, the one school uses parallel medium
(Ieamers in the same grade using different LOLT’s as determined by Ieamer
Choice) and the other uses dual medium (two LOLT’s used simultaneously and
interchangeably in one class). The Mathematics teacher at school MB used both
English and Afrikaans to teach Mathematics. For instance, she would articulate
a mathematical expression while she was writing it on the board and would say
the first term in English, the second in Afrikaans and the third in English:

“Sodra jy dieselde terrne het, moet jy eers met die grouping of the like
terms begin. Se nou jy het eks minus y and x plus y, you first group the like
terms, dan kan jy die res van die terrne uit die hakkies los.“

(As long as you have similar terms (in an expression), you must first group
like terms. Say for instance you have x — y and x plus y, you first group the like
terms, than you can leave the rest outside the brackets).

Whether she was giving actual instruction or admonishing the Ieamers,

she used both languages. All five lessons observed were on factorization. The

fifth class was a preparation for a forthcoming test. Learners were allowed to ask

117

questions in both English and Afrikaans and they could do code mixing and code
switching between the two languages at any given time in Class. In her survey
she said that she used dual medium because that is school policy and African
parents wanted their children to be taught in English, and Afrikaans parents
wanted theirs to be taught in Afrikaans.

The teacher at the Afrikaans-English parallel medium school used English
and Afrikaans to teach Afrikaans lessons to first language Setswana speaking
Ieamers. Although the policy of the school is parallel, not dual medium, the
teacher said it was important for the Ieamers to understand especially literature
since it was mostly that part of the final examinations in which the Ieamers did
not do well. She used English to give synonyms for Afrikaans words that
Ieamers did not know. She also allowed the Ieamers to respond to her in
English. In her survey She said:

Ek gebruik maksimum taalwisseling in my klas om seker te maak dat
leerlinge die woordeskat so wet as idees en konsepte begryp.

(I use maximum code mixing so that I can maximize the leamers’
understanding of vocabulary as well as ideas and concepts)

The mathematics teacher at the Afrikaans medium school used only
Afrikaans in her classes. The Ieamers were allowed to use any language in buzz
groups but they spoke Afrikaans only to the teacher. Although the teacher
teaches English as well, she said that She limited her use of English to the
English Class. She did not do any code switching or code mixing in her English

class.

118

A fourth category of LOLT use was the one where the teacher used all
three languages offered at school in his Afrikaans Classes. The teacher taught
literature, grammar and writing. The interaction in Class was such that the
teacher spoke Setswana, English, Afrikaans and Flaaitaal (African township
language, also referred to as Lingo) to the Ieamers when he explained grammar
points, phrases and vocabulary. The Ieamers, however, were expected to
answer in standard Afrikaans only. For instance in the literature lesson
observed on February 09, the teacher asked the Class the meaning of
“vroedvrou“ (midwife):

“Se my, mense, wat is ‘n vroedvrou, eh, wat beteken vroedvrou?
Vroedvrou mane, okay, e reke le fe Clue, Sakkie se ma is swanger, jy verstaan,
bar, on sy makeer ‘n vroedvrou om hear to help want die kind is op pad, amper.“

(Tell me guys, what is a midwife, what is the meaning of midwife?
Midwife, man, okay, let me give you a clue, Sakkie’s mother is
expectant/pregnant, you see, pregnant (“bar' in Flaitaal), and she needs a
midwife to help her because the child is on its way, almost)

This is followed by a murmur of “oohhh,“ then some of the Ieamers say the
word in Setswana and others in English, in a murmur though. The teacher then
says,

“ Ja, julle weet nou, midwife, maar ons se in Afrikaans vroedvrou“.

(Yes, you know, midwife, but it is “vroedvrou“ in Afrikaans)

In his survey, this teacher said that the reason he used other languages in
his lessons was to maximize understanding. However, he said that the Ieamers
were allowed to respond only in standard Afrikaans to improve their competence

and to prepare them for examinations. So, although the two teachers at school

MA both used other languages to teach science and languages, they did not

119

allow the Ieamers to use languages other than English for content subjects and
Afrikaans for Afrikaans.

Previous school language policies put a stigma on code mixing and code
switching. Critics of this technique, such as Titlestad (1998), believe that
Ieamers end Up not mastering any language when this strategy is used in
instruction. However, this instructional strategy enhances understanding and
therefore needs to be researched. Although only one teacher out of the fourteen
involved in this study used this technique, two other teachers in the extra classes
I observed (by request) at this teacher's school used three to four languages in
Class to emphasize a point or to provide comic relief.

Classroom observations were an inteng part of this study because they
revealed what teachers actually did in real situations. What teachers seemed to
believe about their use of English as LOLT was more often than not slightly
different from the actual use in class. Except for the eight teachers who explicitly
said they made a conscious effort to use only English, the rest of the teachers
used, to a varying degree, code switching in their lessons.

Extra-curricula Activities

All schools held assembly at least thee times a week on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays. The researcher was introduced at assembly at all
schools except school VC. Schools had slightly different policies with regard to
who conducted assembly. At schools MA, MB, MC, Ieamers participated in
leading assembly. The principals introduwd the themes of the day and the

Ieamers led devotions. At MC, Ieamers did a short drama with an AIDS

120

awareness theme and one on the dangers of drug abuse. At both MA and MB,
Ieamers chosen to lead assembly read the Scriptures and led the prayers. The
Ieamers at school MA used Setswana for short sermons and Sesotho and
IsiXhosa for prayers. Hymns were sung in Setswana, English, Sesotho and
IsiXhosa.

Teachers led assembly at all “V“ schools except when there was a priest
from one of the local churches. At school VA and VC, Afrikaans was used
almost entirely for prayers and announcements. At VB only English was used
and at VD hymns and prayers were conducted in the teachers’ Choice of
languages. Most hymns were in Sesotho or English. Even though the
announcements at VD were done in Setswana on most occasions, the
researcher was introduced in English.

Language use for sports training and music practice depended on the
teachers and the medium of the schools. At MA, there were no sports activities
at the time of observation but the choir practice was in Setswana. Wednesday
afternoons are generally reserved for sports practice. At least two field
observations were conducted at all schools except VC and VB. The former
school did not have any African Ieamers participating in sports, and me latter did
not have any sports activities. At MB, the teacher-coaches used either Afrikaans
or English depending on the language the learner-players used. At VD, soccer
and music were the most popular extra-curricula activities. The music teacher
was the English teacher observed in class. Although he used a lot of English, he

occasionally used Sepedi, his mother tongue to encourage or admonish the choir

121

members. Both soccer coaches spoke Setswana and Flaaitaal to the players. At
MC, the coaches were foreign teachers from African countries so they spoke
English to the Ieamers. One coach did try to speak Setswana to the total
amusement of the players.

Language use for extra-curricula activities reflected the medium of the
school in most cases, but at the two DET schools, Setswana was used more
than any other language.

Non-curricula Activities

The elections of school governing bodies were observed at three schools.
At two schools, MB and MC, although parents turned up, they did not form a
quorum so the elections were postponed. The elections at M8 were scheduled
to take place on March 03, 2000, but the number of parents who turned up did
not meet the required 115 to form a quonlm at this 460 -Iearner population
school. At both MB and MC, the principals were Chairmen of the proceedings.
At MB, the principal stated the reason for the meeting in English but prayed in
Afrikaans. The introduction of the presiding officer was done in both English and
Afrikaans. The presiding officer apologized for the use of two instead of three
languages. At MC, the elections were scheduled for March 16, 2000 at 6pm. A
similar process like the one at M8 was followed but every procedure was done in
English even though 90% of the 960 Ieamers were African and Setswana first
language speakers.

The VA SGB elections took place on March 20, 2000 and the prowdures

were in Afrikaans. The presiding officer was a Setswana first language speaker

122

but he spoke to parents in both English and Afrikaans. There were at least four
Setswana speaking parents who participated in the elections.

A PTSA meeting was observed at MA on March 18, 2000, at 1pm. The
reason for holding the meeting on a Saturday was that most parents work during
the week and some come from villages outside Mafikeng. Saturday afternoon
meetings maximize the possibilities of attendance since village funerals are held
in the mornings and most parents work half day. The meeting was well attended
and the researcher was introduced to the parents and to the school district
manager. All procedures were conducted in Setswana. Both Ieamers and
parents participated actively in the discussions. Teachers gave reports of
projects they intended to pursue during the 2000 academic year and sought help
from parents. The vice principal gave his report and the principal translated it
into Setswana. One teacher used English and Setswana code mixing by
repeating every sentence he made in English in Setswana almost automatically.
Parents asked a lot of questions, all of them in Setswana although some of them
code-switched between Setswana and Afrikaans.

The other schools, VB, VC and VD had already held their SGB elections
and did not have any non-curricula activities planned for the duration of the
study. Also, the VC SGB was all white, all Afrikaner, so the possibility of
attending one of their meetings was remote because of racial tensions in the

town and particularly at this school.

123

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The findings in this study revealed the following about the four research
questions:
1). What are the grticipants’ meferred languages as subjects?: The results
indicate that English remains the language as subject choice for schools
irrespective of their former or current LOLT. The second Choice differed
depending on the participants. Learners preferred French, teachers preferred
Setswana and parents preferred Afrikaans. Therefore what the participants
preferred and what was offered before the new policy is the same. The
exception is school VC which previously did not offer Setswana as a subject.
2). ' What are the grilcipants' preferred LOLT?: English was the most
preferred LOLT according to the results of this study. The type of school did not
affect the choice of English as preferred LOLT. As with the choice of language
as a subject, English seemed to be preferred for two major reasons: 1) it is the
most commonly spoken and used language at school, in the Province and in the
world, and 2) it provides job opportunities.
3). What are the articipants’ flferred languages for extra-curricula and non-
curricula activities? Learners prefened English for both Assembly and letters to
parents. The most common reason the Ieamers gave for preferring English for
Assembly was that the use of English would increase their opportunities to learn
the language. The most common reason used for preference of English for
letters to parents was that most Ieamers believed that most parents understood

English and therefore the schools should communicate with them in English.

124

This could have resulted from me fact that the majority of the Ieamers were
Children of professionals. (Although the survey questionnaire did not ask for
socio-economiC data, the status of the Ieamers could easily be inferred from the
type of school they attended. Unlike in the United States, all schooling in South
Africa requires fees. These fees are much higher at former white schools than at
former DET schools).

The teachers Chose the Afrikaans-English, and Setswana-English
combinations for Assembly. The reason they gave was that both teachers and
Ieamers would feel comfortable using these languages. For letters to parents
teachers chose the Afrikaans-English option. The most common reason the
teachers gave was that parents could understand either or both languages. The
teachers assumed that since Afrikaans and English were former official
languages, the assumption is that everybody teamed one or the other.

Parents in turn chose Setswana for both Assembly and letters to parents.
The most common reason they gave for using Setswana at Assembly was that it
would be more meaningful for Ieamers to have religious activities in their home
language, in this case Setswana. Most parents believed that writing to parents in
Setswana would curb the problem of limited literacy in English.

4) What are the participants’ opinions about the new LIEP?: Most Ieamers
believed that the new policy would work and that it was necessary for them to
have the right to choose languages they preferred. Learners who were not
supportive of the policy expressed concern for academic performance. They

believed that the more languages added to the curricula, the higher the failure

125

rate would become. Teachers were concerned about practical implications of the
LIEP. The majority of the teachers said the policy was not practical because of
the many constraints that they were already facing, especially with regard to
human and material resources. Parents were more supportive of the policy and
said that Ieamer needs must be met at all cost. The results revealed mixed

feelings about the LIEP, supportive and non-supportive.

126

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the study, conclusions and

implications drawn fiom research results, and suggestions for further research.
SUMMARY

The main aim of this study was to ascertain the language practices and
attitudes of Ieamers, parents and teachers in the Mafikeng and the Vryburg
districts of the North West Province, South Africa. The study was carried out in
order to establish the feasibility of the new LIEP and to determine whether or not
there have been any Changes in language policies at different schools since the
introduction of the new LIEP. The new policy gives Ieamers the right to receive
instruction in the language of their choice and to choose the languages they
prefer as subjects.

The historical development of language in education policy in South

Africa since the establishment of formal schools in the eighteenth century has
been wrought with problems of linguistic inequalities. The first formal schools in
the country were missionary schools, and the language policy of these schools
made English the most important LOLT even if indigenous African languages
were allowed as LOLT’s in the first four grades of school. The material benefits
associated with English competence, such as job availability, made the use of
African languages almost valueless. Both Roy-Campbell (1998) and Brown
(1992) argue that missionary schools devalued African languages by the

“colonial bilingualism“ that recommended the use of indigenous languages but

127

continued to use English as a sole LOLT and placed higher value on English
competence than on any other language.

The post-apartheid language policy aims at elevating the status of
indigenous languages, promoting multilingualism, and increasing access to
education through the use of mother tongue instruction. Pule (1997, p. 33)
states that:

The Constitution looks at four basic issues concerning multilingualism:

redress, equality, non-discrimination and access, and we feel that these

four major principles of our Constitution should be passed on to our
learners, so that policy and practice can be brought together.

The new LIEP was meant to translate the principles of the Constitution
into practice in education. The position of the indigenous languages in language
in education policies is therefore crucial in measuring whether or not the new
LIEP is being effectively implemented.

The literature reviewed in this study indicated that problems of post-
colonial language in education policy are common in Africa. The usual practice
is that colonial languages, such as English and French continue to be used by
new governments as official languages. This ‘inheritance’ situation occurs even
though the majority of the population in different countries generally do not have
competence in or access to the colonial languages. Such is the case in South
Africa, where only about twenty-five percent of the country’s non-English first
language speakers are competent in English (Webb 1998). However, the
literature review also demonstrated that the use of mother tongue instruction

could be successful if governments and communities were committed to the

promotion of these languages. Two such examples of policy implementation

128

success are reported in the study by Boothe and Walker (1997), and Gfeller and
Robinson (1998).

The research literature reviewed in this study focused on studies of
language attitudes and practices of teachers and Ieamers. The present study
added a third dimension, parents. Further, this study, unlike previous research
was conducted at schools and in classrooms. Arthur (1997) stated that there is a
need to study the actual sites of language in education policy implementation,
that is, at schools.

Data collected from surveys were classified into four parts: 1) languages
preferred as subjects and reasons, 2) languages preferred as LOLT’s and
reasons, 3) languages preferred for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities
and reasons, and 4) opinions about the new LIEP. The number and percentages
of respondents were given in tables, and the level of preference for each
language was established. For the question on the LIEP, the arguments that
were supportive of the policy were distinguished from those that were not
supportive of the new policy. Observations were done in classrooms to
determine what languages the teachers used as LOLT’s. Extra-curricula and
non-curricula activities were also observed to establish what languages the
schools used for these activities.

The results of the present study indicate an overwhelming support for
English as a preferred language as a subject across all three groups of
participants. The most common reason for this preference was that English is

the most commonly used language at school, in the Province and in the world.

129

Setswana was a number two option only for teachers, third for parents and fifth
for Ieamers. In spite of the different rankings of Setswana by participants, the
most common reason given for this option was that Setswana was the most
dominant language in the Province. Other South African indigenous languages
including IsiXhosa, were placed third by Ieamers and fourth by parents and
teachers. Learners placed foreign languages, especially French, number two.
Afrikaans was the fourth option for Ieamers, third for teachers, and second for
parents. The language was chosen because it was said to increase job
opportunities.

English was also chosen as a preferred LOLT across all three groups.
Three most common reasons for this preference were that: 1) English was the
most commonly spoken and used language at school in the Province and in the
world, 2) English provides opportunities, and 3) most publications are in English.
Although Setswana is the most dominant language in the Province, only a few
Ieamers and one teacher chose it as LOLT, and no parent chose it.

For extra-curricula and non-curricula activities, learner preferences made
English the highest option, teachers made Setswana and English, as well as
Afrikaans and English, the highest preference, and parent preferences ranked
Setswana highest for Assembly. Preferences for letters to parents also differed
slightly. Learners chose English, teachers chose the English-Afrikaans option,
and parents chose Setswana. The English option chosen by Ieamers was

selected bemuse Ieamers believed that parents understood English. The

130

English and Afrikaans option and the Setswana and English options were chosen
because the participants felt that parents must be given language options.

Sixty-two out of 171 Ieamers did not comment on the new LIEP.

However, of the 109 that responded, fifty-nine were supportive, one was neutral,

and forty-nine were not supportive of the policy. Nine out of twenty-two teachers
were supportive of the policy; ten were not supportive. Two did not respond, and
one said he had no idea what the policy meant. Seventeen out of twenty parents
supported the policy and only three were not supportive of the policy.

Learners who were supportive of the policy said that it would realize their
right to choose languages as subjects and LOLT’s. Those who were not
supportive considered the negative academic impact of a multilingual policy.
They felt that they would not do as well in other languages as they would in
English. Teachers who were supportive of the policy said that it would enhance
academic performance and elevate the status of African languages. Those that
were not supportive said the actual implementation of the policy would cause
confusion and it would not be cost-effective. Parents said that all measures must
be taken to maximize the learners’ success at school and that their (Ieamers)
preferences must be met at all costs. The three parents who were not supportive
of the policy said that the policy was not practical because it was not long term, it
was not cost effective, and non-dominant languages would be difficult to use as
LOLT.

Classroom observations revealed a four- category pattern of language use

by teachers. One category used English only, a second used English and

131

Afrikaans, a third used Setswana and English, and a fourth combined a number
of different languages.

To a large extent, the medium of the school determined the language/s
used for extra-curricula and non-curricula activities. For example, English only
schools used mostly English for these activities.

The main conclusion drawn from this study is that Ieamers, teachers and
parents still consider English and Afrikaans the most important languages in the
Province and indeed in the country. Therefore, the power of these languages
seems to remain in spite of the option given to schools by the new policy to
introduce African languages in their curriculum.

Some theorists believe that the new language policy will be a threat to
English. Ntlhakana (2000, p. 14) cites De Klerk as one of those who believe that
English will be threatened by the new policy:

De Klerk sees the future prospects of English in South Africa as ‘bleak’
due to factors such as: the recent changes in educational policy which gives
schools the freedom to choose the medium of instruction (According to DeKlerk)
“Some schools may opt for two or more indigenous languages and discontinue
the teaching of English entirely.”

The second factor that Ntlhakana cites as a contributing factor to the
apparent threat to English is that it is no longer compulsory for matrics (grade 12)
to pass the language of instruction in order to gain university exemption. 80,
English is no longer a requirement for university admission. The author states
that this waiver is just a temporary measure meant to increase the number of

African students at university. Like De Klerk, she believes that the “choice“ of
English will be inevitable. Contrary to what linguists such as De Klerk think, this

132

study demonstrated that in spite of the choices given in the LIEP, English is by
no means “threatened.” In fact, the changes that occurred in the two former
Afrikaans medium schools increased the power of English. One of the two
schools introduced Setswana and English, the other introduced English only.

The results of the study also indicated that the options inherent in the LIEP
did not seem to be well understood by participants. The general conception of
the policy is that schools would be expected to teach all eleven languages all at
once, rather than offer only those languages chosen by stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The new LIEP in South Africa is radical in many ways because it is aimed
at elevating the status of all indigenous languages. It is therefore difficult for
many people to conceptualize a situation where all languages would be taught in
one school, especially since they have a history of only two or three languages
being used during the apartheid years. This is clearly a misinterpretation of the
policy. The policy states that language options should be offered where it is
practicable, and where the number of demands, thirty-five Ieamers at high
school, satisfies the option. The policy does not say all eleven languages must
be used at one school.

The conclusions and implications discussed below stem from the findings
in this study and the researcher’s own view on the LIEP based on the research
results.

Based on the results from the study, and the fact that the researcher had

to explain to participants what the policy entailed, there is a need to educate

133

stakeholders about the provisions of the LIEP in order for them to make informed
decisions. In the North West Province, there have already been two instances of
demands for mother tongue instruction for two languages, lsiNdebele and
IsiXhosa. In 1996, the AmaNdebele of Nkosi (Chief) Zibi demanded that their
children be taught in lsiNdebele because it is their mother tongue. The then
MEC for Education in the Province instructed that this demand be met. In 1999,
the AmaXhosa in the Matolong area of Taung also demanded IsiXhosa as a
language as a subject to be taught in their schools. At the time of this study, the
office of the MEC was still working on this demand.

In spite of the above examples that were covered by the Province’s
broadcasting television, however, not all participants were aware of the
provisions of the LIEP. Teacher 14 said he had no idea what the policy entailed.
As Smithennan (2000) states, there is a serious need to educate the population
about social policies that affect their lives directly. A program such as "Puo
Dikolong' (Languages in Schools) by the English Language Information Centre
(ELTIC) can be extended to all provinces to raise the consciousness of
stakeholders about the important role they play in formulating language policy in
school. (Pule 1998, p. 33) says this about the role of the ELTIC project in helping
stakeholders to formulate language policy in education:

These principles (in the new LIEP) are specified as parameters, but
there is not enough guidance for people to formulate policies
themselves. The devolution of power involves empowering people
to be able to do things for themselves. However, the principles can

be misinterpreted and misused. Our aim, therefore, is to assist
schools to be able to formulate policy in an lnfonned way.

134

Pule then goes on to outline the three phases of their program: 1) workshops to
inform participants about the content of the policy; 2) teaching teachers and
other stakeholders research skills so they can carry out needs analysis to
determine attitudes and preferences, and finally; 3) helping participants to draft
and re-draft the individual school language policies. Accessibility of information
is crucial to the realization of the new LIEP. As Teacher 4 stated:

(Dit) kan werk as almal weet wat om te doen. Leerders moet ‘n begrip vir
die taal van onderrig toon

((It) can work if everyone knows what to do. Laamars must have a
thorough understanding of the language of Ieaming and teaching)

It is crucial to raise the consciousness of the participants to the
pedagogical implications of mother tongue instruction. The participants’
responses indicated that they believe that Ieamers could only team through the
medium of English. This reflects the legacy of Fundamental Pedagogics.
Teacher education programs in South Africa were for a long time based on the
principles of this philosophy of education. These principles were based on the
notion that separate is equal, that African children were fundamentally different
from white children and therefore the quality of their education was designed to
reflect these apparent differences. While white children were taught in their
mother tongue, African children were forced to learn through second, third, or
fourth languages. The decline in the quality of education for African children was
blamed on their inability to grasp concepts in English, and not on the fact that
they were taught in a language that was not their own, took the same

examinations as children taught in their mother tongue, English, and yet were

135

expected to yield the same results. It is also important to note that as Mabokela
(2000) observes literacy in South Africa is only associated with English.
Therefore when the teachers say ”Most members of the community are illiterate,”
they imply that they cannot read and write English.

The use of English as the sole LOLT in schools for African children also
contributed significantly to the negative attitudes towards indigenous languages.
Since teacher education is in the process of being re-evaluated and transformed,
training institutions should re-examine the role of mother tongue instruction in
teacher education programs.

As two teachers in the study suggested, in order to help realize the eleven
language policy, regional languages must be used as languages as subjects to
curb the feeling of being overwhelmed by the number of languages. Except for
the Gauteng Province where all eleven South African languages are represented,
all the other provinces have only three or four dominant languages. In the North
West Province for instance, all four dominant languages and Sesotho can be
accommodated in at least three schools per district In the Northem Cape during
apartheid days, there was one school in Kimberley that offered four languages:
Setswana, IsiXhosa, English and Afrikaans. This can be done in the North West
Province. One of the two universities in the North West Province has been
offering lsiZulu for a number of years. The two universities can collaborate in
adding two more indigenous languages, IsiXhosa and Sesotho to prepare
teachers to teach these languages. One teacher said that the realization of the

policy is made difficult because the department responds by employing language

136

coordinators instead of well- trained teachers to meet the demands in schools. It
is important that provision of teachers to meet demands for indigenous
languages should be taken as seriously as providing teachers for English and/or
Afrikaans.

One of the reasons given for the failure of the LIEP is that there are no
human resources to meet the demands for indigenous language teachers. The
scarcity of resources depends on where and how the ministries are recruiting
staff. All former Historically Black Universities (HBU’s), the so-celled Bush
Colleges, taught indigenous languages. Since these institutions were meant to
train personnel for homeland governments, they offered languages spoken in
those homelands. In fact, not many university undergraduates chose English as
a major because it was more difficult to get through first year of English at most
of these institutions than to pass other Arts and Humanities courses. The
complexion of university English department staff, to this day, demonstrates this
fact. The researcher's undergraduate alma mater had its very first African
teacher of English at its main campus in 1990, after thirty years of existence.
There is a wealth of suitably qualified indigenous language teachers all over the
country.

Some participants believed that most publications were in English.
Although this is true, the historical factor of the experiment with the use of
indigenous languages in schools in 1974 in particular proved that materials can
be published in indigenous languages to teach all school subjects. Indigenous

languages were developed by apartheid design to run Bantustans. In fact,

137

between 1973 and 1975 there was a massive production of textbooks in
indigenous languages used from the then standards five and six (grades seven
and eight ). This project was summarily abandoned towards the end of 1974 and
Afrikaans took over again. Therefore, if the whole standard six syllabus could be
taught in indigenous languages, then, how are they incapable of teaching it now?
If the entire Bantustan budget (tekanyetso-kabo) could be explained in
Setswana, and words like 'allergies’ (dikganano) and “traffic” (pharakano) could
have equivalents in Setswana, lsiZulu and IsiXhosa, what level of development is
needed for these languages? It is the atb'tude of textbook publishers that sets
the languages at a disadvantage, not the level of complexity or inadequacy of the
languages. For instance, the current M-Net (a private television broadcasting
company) awards have been extended for the past five years to include awards
for books written in African languages. However, books in these languages are
ranked lower than both English and Afrikaans books. The winning prize for the
category of African languages is less than half the prize given English and
Afrikaans books. M-Net’s policy of linguistic discrimination is quite blatant in this
regard. Unless the attitude changes, the notion that African languages are
insufficient to convey complex thoughts will continue to be perpetuated.

Most participants who were supportive of the new LIEP lamented lack of
commitment from government. Teacher 17 said that the government created
too many obstacled for the introduction of other languages. There was too much
bureaucracy involved in the request for additional languages. The Provincial

Ministry of Education needs to be aware of the implicit and explicit hindrance of

I38

the realization of the policy. However, the two language groups that have
already made their demands heard and met will serve as a premdent for others
who want to make the demands. Further, one teacher at school VA who
advocated English only even for extra-curricula activities said that documents
from the Provincial Ministry are written in English. So everybody has to use the
language. The teacher believed that teachers and Ieamers at this Afrikaans
medium school dominated by first language speakers of Afrikaans, should speak
English so that they do not misunderstand government documents. However,
according to Constitutional provisions, the government owes it to the people to
make information accessible to them in whatever official language they require.
80 the actual practice of government seems to violate the provisions of the
Constitution in this regard.

Researchers influence government decisions, and their research should
therefore yield reliable information. Mparutsa, Thondlana and Crawhall (1992, p.
239) observed that questionnaires that have been used to elicit attitudes are
structured in such a way that they elicit cliched and stereotypical, almost
predictable responses. Interpreters of research reports in government must be
able to examine such possibilities. The researchers also state that in a study of
attitudes, contradictions are bound to occur. In this study in particular, conflict of
preferences between Afrikaans and Setswana was evident. Slabbert (1998, p.
36) and Mpanrtsa, Thondlhana and Crawhall (1992, p. 239) state that these
contradictions and conflicts are inevitable. A consensus can be negotiated

among participants if all demands cannot be met. Researchers, especially those

139

that advise governments on policy issues must make an effort to obtain, to a very
large extent, reliable, corroborated information. Large scale research should be
conducted to establish the language preferences of, and the potential demands
made by stakeholders so that resources can be allocated to schools to meet
these demands. The schools should not be caught unprepared and the
government should make provisions for meeting demands and satisfying
preferences that are not catered for in the LIEP. For instance, in this study, the
learners’ ovenrvhelming preference for foreign languages above official
languages should be considered.

The language provisions in the Constitution and the LIEP document need
to be revisited. Both documents state that any two official languages should be
offered by schools. This statement undermines the attempt to promote
indigenous languages in that the pattern that emerges is that schools still use the
apartheid policy of English and Afrikaans. There is very little if any attempt in the
schools to add an indigenous language to the school language curricula. The
chances of English and Afrikaans remaining dominant languages in the North
West Province and indeed in the country seem inevitable. The clauses in the
Constitution, the School Act, and the LIEP document have to be re-evaluated.
As one teacher said: “English is an unofficial only official language.” The
Provincial government should therefore use its power to promote the use of
indigenous languages in education, commerce and the law. While there is a
need to acknowledge the international status of English, are Constitution and the

LIEP guarantee the promotion of indigenous languages. However, the

140

"practicality” option minimizes the chances of indigenous languages being
promoted. The results of this research points out the overwhelming support for
English. The question is, would participants have responded differently if they
understood the provisions of the LIEP?

The participants’ preferences for English in this study must be
acknowledged. The international status of English accounts for the participants’
choices. However, given the fact that only twenty five percent of Africans, the
largest population group in South Africa, is competent in English, the continued
dominance of English serves to perpetuate inequalities. The government has an
obligation to meet the language demands of the population but it must also live
up to its promises of eradicating linguistic inequalities. Therefore it should not

maintain the dominance of English at the expense of other languages.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Further research should be conducted on a bigger scale to
determine language in education attitudes and to compare these
across the privileged and the non-privibged schools and school
communities.

2. Research is needed in higher education language policy.
Decisions that parents and Ieamers make at high school will have a
long- term effect on their tertiary education.

3. The language attitudes of potential employers also need to be

researched. Learners get the false notion that English and

141

Afrikaans are the only two languages that can guarantee them jobs,
especially in the media industry.

4. Survey and evaluate programs for training language education
teachers at tertiary instimtions.

5. Conduct research on the distribution of resources for the
development, teaching and promotion of the eleven official
languages.

This study set out to investigate the language attitudes and practices in
the North West Province to determine the feasibility of the new LIEP. The
reasons given for the preferences for languages and the views about the
feasibility of the new LIEP shed light on the challenges of language in education
policy implementation in the Province. Further, at least two former single
medium, single race schools have now changed to all race, dual and/or parallel
media. Still, there is a serious need to inform the stakeholders about their
options and their right to choose the languages they prefer. The pedagogic
implications of mother tongue instruction have to be emphasized in teacher
preparation programs and in in-service training of teachers. The notion of the
insufficiency of indigenous languages must be eradicate by introducing the socio-
linguistic approach to language policy and planning as a sub-discipline of
Language Studies and Linguistics at university and training colleges. The
government needs to put more commitment to policy implementation by setting
an example. For example one Ieamer respondent in the study said: ”Nobody

important speaks IsiXhosa” - the President of the country’s mother tongue - and

142

another Ieamer respondent said “ I prefer English because the President of the
country speaks English.” Mateene (1996, p. 1) says this about African leaders
and their post-colonial language use:
The relationship between the exercise of power and language can not be
overlooked. Politiwl power and domination are not exercised in the
language of those who are dominated. It is therefore quite normal that a
change of political power be accompanied by a change of language. It is
a sign of dishonesty and disappointment on the part of leaders who use
African languages in their mmpaign for election. After being elected, they
restart using a foreign official language, not known by the people who
voted for them
The development of Afrikaans was a deliberate effort by the National Party
to promote the language. Massive financial resources were poured into the
development of Afrikaans. The present government can do the same for African
languages if it really wants to live up to the Constitutional provision of 'promoting
previously disadvantaged languages.” If the government does not aggressively
make provision for the practical implementation of this part of the policy, the
eleven official language policy will remain a document, never to be realized in

South Africa.

143

APPENDIX A

Letter of Request
P O Box 1915
Mafikeng 2745
16‘“I January 2000
The Principal
....... High School
Mafikeng/Vryburg
Dear Mr. X

PERMISSION TO DO DATA COLLECTION AT YOUR SCHOOL

I would like to request your permission to collect data at your school for at least five
visits in the first quarter of the school year.

Iamcmrentlydoingrcscarchineducationpolicyaspartofmy studies towards aPh.D. in
Language Policy and Planning at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.

Thank you
Yours sincerely

Tumelontle Thiba

144

APPENDIX B

Informed Consent Form

The pmpose of this research is to find out how the language in education policy is
implemented in schools in the North West Province, South Africa. The research will
focus on the opinions of learners, teachers and parents about language in education
issues. The study is conducted by the researcher as part of the fulfillment of the
requirements for a Ph.D. in Language Policy and Planning, in the Department of English,
at Michigan State University.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are requested to fill in the
questionnaire to the best of your ability. You can withdraw from participation at any
point if you wish to do so. Your withdrawal will be without penalty. You are also free to
fill in only the part that you want to respond to. The time required for participation in
this study is 20 minutes or less.

Your name and the name of your school will be kept confidential. Any
information that you do not wish the researcher to use will be protected. Please ask
questions at any stage while you are filling in the questionnaire or at a later stage. You
could also direct your queries to Professor D. Wright, Chair of University Committee on
Research involving Human Subjects, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824, USA. Telephone: 091 517 355 2180

Thank you for your participation

Tumelontle Thiba

University of North West 211 East Pointe Lane Apt #D20
Private Bag X2046 East Lansing, MI 48823 USA
Mafikeng 2735 091 517 336 8938

North West Province, South Afi'ica thibatum@pilot.msu.edu
tmteng@1mibo.uniwest.ac.za

082 975 7886

I have read and understand the above.

Name
Signature

Date

145

APPENDIX C

LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION SURVEY
Please cross the statement that is most appropriate for you.
Part I: Bio-data
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Home language: a). Setswana. h). IsiXhosa. c). Afrikaans. d). English
c). Other/s
3. Other languages that you speak: a). Setswana. b). IsiXhosa. c). Afrikaans.
d). English. c). Other/s

 

Part II

Please cross the most appropriate answer for your school.
4. Which languages are taught at your school and why?
Setswana

Reasons

 

 

h). IsiXhosa

Reasons

 

 

c)Afrikaans

Reasons

 

 

English

Reasons

 

 

146

5.

Which language/s does your school use to teach and why?
Setswana

 

 

 

IsiXhosa

 

 

 

English

 

 

 

Afrikaans

 

 

 

Which language/s would you like your school to use to teach and why?
Setswana

 

 

IsiXhosa

 

 

Afrikaans

 

 

English

 

 

147

Other/s

 

 

7a Which Ianguagels would you want your school to teach and why?
Setswana

 

 

IsiXhosa

 

 

Afrikaans

 

 

English

 

 

Other/s

 

 

01‘

7b. Which language/s would you not like your school to teach and why?
Setswana

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afrikaans

 

 

 

English

 

148

 

 

Other/s

 

 

8a. Which language/s are used for the following activities and why?
a). Assembly
b). Sports
c). PTSA meetings
d). Letters to parents
Which language/s should be used for the above activities and why?
a). Assembly
b). Sports
c). PTSA
d). Letters to parents

81). Which language/s should be used in your final examinations and why?
a). Setswana
h). IsiXhosa
c). Afrikaans
(1). English
c). Other

 

Part III
9. Comment on the language in education policy at your school in the next five

years.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your participation.
Ms. Thiba.

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achebe, C. (1988). Hopes and Immiments: Selected Essays.
New York: Anchor Books.

Africa, H. P. (1993). Language Policy Issues with Reference to Namibia:

An Agenda for Research. In K. K. Prah (Ed.). Social Science Reflrch
Priogty' for Ngmibia (pp. 164 - 171). Windhoek: University of Namibia 8
COSDERIA

Ahulu, S. (1997). General English: The Consideration of the Nature of English

as an lntemational Medium. In English Today 49 (pp. 17 - 23)
Vol. 13, No. 1.

Alexander, N. (1989). Language Polgy’ and National my in South
Africa/Azania Cape Town: Buchu Books.

(1992). Language Planning from Below. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.),
Language and Socigty in Africa: Thg Theory and Practice of
Sociolinguistics (pp. 143 — 149). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University
Press.

(1995). Nation Building and Language in the New South Africa. In
M. Putz (Ed.) Discrimination through Qnguggg in Afrig? Pem' 9n
the Namibian Exmrience (pp. 29 — 43).

Arthur, J. (1997). “There must be something undiscovered which prevents
us from doing our work well': Botswana primary teachers’ view

0" educational language POlicy- In W (PP- 225 -
259). Vol. 11:4.

Bamgbose, A (1991). Lan andth N ' . '
in Sugghgm Afrig. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

( Ed) (1992)- mm
Provisions of the Nflonal Pgligy m Education. Abuja: Language
Development Centre.

 

Bengu. S.M.E. (1997). “Statement on the new language policY'.

Bokamba, E. (1995). The Politics of Language Planning in Africa:
Critical Choices for the 21" Century from Martin Putz (Ed.),
Dis-criminatm through Langugge in Afrig. (pp. 11 - 27). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter

150

Boothe, K. 8 Walker, R. (1997). ”Mother tongue education in Ethiopia:

From Policy to Implementation”. In Language Prebgms and
Language Planning, Vol. 21:1. (pp. 1 - 19).

Brown, D. (1992). Language and Social History in South Africa: A Task
Still to be Undertaken. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and Society

in Africa: The Theogy am Practice of Sociolinguistics. (pp. 71 - 92).
Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

(Ed.) (1996). Baggage n Polm’ ane gngaage Leamlng for a
Multilingual Society. Durban: University of Natal Education Policy Unit.

Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a Bilingual History lesson:
The Mother Tongue as a Conversational Lubricant. In Bilingeel Edegtion
and Bilingualism, (pp. 81 - 99). Vol. 1: 2.

Central Statistics Services of South Africa. 1996. Pretoria: CSSSA
Christie, P. (1986). The Rig' ht to Learn. Johannesburg: Raven Press.

Chiwome, E 8 Thondlhana, J. (1992). Sociolinguistics and Education:
A Survey Concerning Attitudes on the Teaching of Shona through the

Medium of Shona. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and my in Africa:

The Theog and Practice of Sociolinguistics. (pp. 247- 263).
Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Carson, D. (1990). La u P It the ' l m.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Cooper, R. L. (1989) PI mi and ' lChan e. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Crawhall, N. (Ed.). 1992. Demtically Segking: Intemm' nal Persmves
on Langu_age Planniag. Salt River: NLP.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research Design. California: SAGE Publications.

Cross, M et al. (1998). Dealing with Diverem in South Afrign Eduefle‘ n.
Kenwyn: Juta.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. (Act 108 of 1996).
Daniels, H. A. (1990). What One Teacher Can Do. In H. A. Daniels (Ed)

Not Only English. (pp. 121 - 129). Urbana: National Council of
Teachers of English.

151

De Klerk. G. (1995). Three Languages in One School: A Multilingual
Exploration in a Primary School. In Heugh (Ed.), Multilingual Edugtjen
Ear fiuth Africa. Johannesburg: Heinemann.

De Klerk, V. 8 Barkhuizen, G.P.( 1998). Language Attitudes in the South
African National Defense Force: Views from the Sixth South African
Infantry. Multilingua, Vol. 17-2/3. (pp. 155 - 179).

Desai, Z. (1994). Praat or Speak, but don't Thetha: On Language Rights in
South Africa. In Language ane Edum'on (pp. 19 - 29). Vol. 8, Nos. 283.

Diaz-Rico, L. T. 8 Weed, K 2. (1995). The muural Laeguage and
mic Devel nt k: A Com lete K- 12 R eren ui

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Edwards, J. (1984). Li ' ' Mi " P li' nd Pl Ii m.

London: Academic Press

Extra, G. 8 Maartens, J (Ed.). (1998). Multilin uali in a Multicultural
se Studies on South ' n W Euro . The Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.

Fishman, J. (1998). The New Linguieu'e Order. In Foreign Policy (pp. 26 - 40)
Number 113.

Fourie, D. (1993). Reflections on Research Priorities in the African Languages.

anK.Prah(Ed.). 'r 'n R r Pri “ r Nmii
(pp. 172 — 181).

F reire, P. (1998). Pel'mg' ene Edugtion. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American
Center Publications.

Gfeller, E. 8 Robinson, C.(1998). Which Language for Teaching? The
Cultural Messages Transmitted by the Languages Used in Education.

In 939W. Vol. 12:1. (pp. 18 - 32)-

Granville et al.,( 1998). English with or without G(u)ilt: A Position Paper on
Language in Education Policy for South Africa. Langeme and Egegtion,
(pp. 254 - 272). Vol. 12:4.

Gupta, A. F. (1997). Moral English. In Englieh Today 49. Vol. 13, No. 1.

Gutrnann, A (1987). mm Princeton: Princeton University
Press.

152

Hartshorne, K. (1995). Language Policy in African Education: A Background
to the Future. In Mesthrie (Ed.), Langgge and Social Histog: Studies in
South African Socioliaguistics. (pp. 306 - 318). Johannesburg: David
Phillips.

Heine, B. (1992). Language Policies in Africa. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Laggyage

and may in Africa: The Theory and Practig of Sociolinguise'cs. (pp.
23_- 35). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

 

Herbert, R.K. (Ed.) (1992). Lan u ' in Afri : Th Th 11
Pgactice of Sociolinguistics. Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.

Heugh, K. (1988). Languages, Development and Reconstructing Education in
South Africa. Paper read at the 10'“ World Congress of wcces, Cape Town.

(Ed.) (1995). Multilingtal Edggflgn for $1,111 Afriee. Johannesburg:

Heinemann.

 

Jones, B. M. 8 Sigh- Ghuman, P. A. (Ed.) (1995). Education and ldflity‘.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Kallaway, P. (1984). mm. Johannesburg: Raven Press.

Kamwangamalu, N. (1997). Mulitilingualism and Language Policy in Post-
Apartheid South Africa. In Language Planning and Laeguage Problems
(pp. 234 -253). Vol.27, No.3.

Kloss, H. (1978). Problems of Language Policy in South Africa.
Wren: Wilhelm Braumuller.

Langa, J. 8 Chambale-Mshotola, S. (2000). The Status of Mozambican
Languages in Education. In K. K. Prah (Ed.). Between Distinction erg
Extinction (pp. 213-221). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University
Press.

LANGTAG (1996). Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changieg Literacies. Buckingham: Open University
Press.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (1990) The Foundations of Dual Lamuage Instruction.
New York: Longman.

153

Liebowitz, B. (1992). Teacher Research in the Multilingual Classroom. In
SAJALS. (pp. 1 — 13). Volume 1, No 2.

Louise-Perez, M. (1994). Code-switching as an Aid to L2 Learning. In
SAJALS (pp. 14 - 22). Volume 3, No. 1.

Mabokela, R. O. (2000). 'We Cannot Find Qualified Blacks’: Faculty
Diversification Programmes at South African University. In Comgrative
Education (pp. 95 - 112). Volume 36 No 1.

Makhudu, K.D.P. (1995). An Introduction to Flaaitaal. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.)
Lan u eand Social Histo : i in African 'Iin ui ti .
Johannesburg: David Phillips.

Makoni, S. (1999). Shifting Discourses in Language Studies in South Africa.
In K. K. Prah(Ed.). Knowle_dge in Black and Whfie: The lmgct of

Agrtheid on the Prgguction and Reerodection of Knowledge
(pp. 143 - 148). Cape Town: UWC Centre for Advanced Studies

of African Society.

Mann, C 8 Wong, G. (1999). Issues in Language Planning and Language
Education: A Survey from Macao on Its Return to Chinese Sovereignity.

In Language Planning am Ianggage Pagelems (pp. 17 - 36). Volume 23,
Number 1.

Mateene, K. (1996). OAU Strategies for Linguistic Unity and Multilingual
Education. Paper Presented at the lntemational Seminar on Language
and Education in Africa, Cape Town.

McCormick, K. (1986). Children’s Use of Language in District Six. In Growing
up in a Divieg my. Cape town: UCT.

McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary Multicufiggalism. Oxford: Westview Press.

Mbeki, G. (2000). The Relevance of African Languages for Education and
Development. In K.K. Prah (Ed.), Between Distinction and Extinction:

The Harmonisation and Standardisation of African Langaagee (pxii).
Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Mesthrie, R. (Ed.) (1995). Lagguage and mar History: Studies in guth
African Sociolinguistics. Johannesburg: David Phillip.

Mmusi et al. (1996) “Preliminary Report on the Language Policy for the
University of the North.” Mankweng: University of the North.

154

Mothata, S. (Ed.), 2000. A Dictionagr of South African Education and Training.
Johannesburg: Hodder 8 Stoughton.

Mparutsa, C, Thondhlana, J 8 Crawhall, N. (1992). An Initial Investigation
into Language Attitudes of Secondary School Students in Zimbabwe. In
R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and Society in Africa: The Theory am
practice of Societiaguisitg. (pp235 - 245). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand
University Press.

National Educational Policy Investigation: The Framework Report. (1993).
Cape Town: Oxford University Press/NECC.

Ntlhakana, M. P.(2000). People’s Language: Language Policy in South Africa
and its Impact on English Education. In English Today §2. (pp. 11 — 17).
Vol. 16, No.2.

Nyathi-Ramahobo, L. (1998). gngeage Planniag in Botswana. In Luggage
Planning and gnggge Probleme (pp. 48 - 62). Vol. 22, No 1.

Ohly, R. (1992). Diagnostic and Therapeutic Aspects of Sociolinguistics in
Pre-Independent Namibia: The Effects of First and Second Order

Observation. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and Socieg in Afeg' :Tlfi

Theda and Practice of Socioliaguiflg (pp. 49 - 69). Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.

Omar, A. H. 8 Noor, N. E. M. (Ed.) (1981). National
Instruction. Kuala Lumpur: Cetakan Pertma.

Omar-Cooper, J.D.(1994) Histog of Soflem Africa. Cape Town: David Phillip.

Perez, B. (1998). m'ocultaral Conteige of gnguage and Litem
London: LEA.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pineda, P.B.P. (1981 ). The National Language as Medium of Instruction: The
Philippine Experience. In A. H. Omar 8 N.E.M. Noor (Eds.) Nemaal

Language as Medium ef lnetruction (pp. 23 - —3). Kuala Lumpur:
Cetakan Pertama.

Plank, ON. (1987). Why School Reform doesn't Change Schools: Political and

Organizational Perspectives. In Pelm' Q at Edagtion Aam‘atier] Yearbook
(pp. 143 — 152).

Prah, K. K. (1993). Mother Tongue for Scientific and Tflnolmical develoment

in Africa. Bonn: German Foundation for lntemational Development,

 

155

Education, Science and Documentation Centre.

(1995a). Afrign Lamuages for Mag Education of Africans.
Bonn: Education, Education Science and Documentation Centre.

(1997). Beyond the QQur Line. Florida: Vrvlia.
(1998). Between Distinction and Extinction. Johannesburg:

Witwatersrand University Press
Pule, D. (1997). The ELTIC Project. In D. Brown (Ed.), Education Poliey
and Language Leamlng for a Multilingual Seqety. (pp. 33 - 34). Durban:
University of Natal Education Policy Unit.
Putz, M. (Ed.). (1995) Discrimination through Qngaage in Africa?: Pegemy as

on theNamibian Exgriengg. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Resnick, M. C. (1993). ESL and Language Planning in Puerto Rico. In TESOL
Quarterly (pp. 259 - 275). Vol. 27, No. 2

Retzes, M 8 Crawhall, N. (1998). Silenced bv Nation-Building: African

Immigrants 8 Language Policy in the New South Africa.
Cape Town: Southern African Migration Project.

Robinson, C. D. W. (1994). Local Languages for Local Literacies? Debating a
Cenatral Dilemma. In Language and Education (pp. 69 — 74). Vol. 8.
Nos. 1 8 2.

R003, R. (1997). Vrve Ia differencel? Language Challenges in South Africa.
In Language Awareness (pp. 171 - 197). Vol. 6, Nos. 283.

Roy-Campbell, M. Z. (1998). Attitudes towards the Use of African Languages
as Media of Instruction in Secondary Schools: Reflections from Tanzania
and Zimbabwe. In K K Prah (Ed.), Between Distinction and Extinction.
(pp. 255 - 274). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Ruth, D. (1996). Teaching at a South African University. In Teaching in Higher
Education (pp. 129 - 133). Oxford: Carfax Publishing Company.

Satyo, S. (1999). Eleven Official Languages: One Plus One Equals Two.
In K. K. Prah (Ed.) Knowledge in Black and White: The Impag ef

Agrtheid in Prguction and Reproduction of Knowledge (pp. 149 —158).
Cape Town: UWC: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society.

156

Seepe, S. (1998). Teaching Mathematics and Natural Sciences in African

Languages. In K. K Prah (Ed.). Between Distinction and Extinetp' n
(pp. 243 - 253). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Smit, U. (1994). Investigating Language Attitudes as a Basis for Formulating
Language Polices: A Case Study. In SAJALS (pp. 23 - 35). Vol. 3, No. 1.

 

Smithennan, G. (1998) From ‘Hujambo to Molo': The Study of and Interest
in African Languages among African Americans. In K. K. Prah (Ed.),

Between Distinction and Extinfl' n (pp. 275 -303). Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.

............. (2000) Talkin that Talk: Language, Culture and Educatien in African
America. London: Routledge.

 

Smithennan, G. 8 Thiba, T. (1998). Book Review: Multilingual Education for
South Africa. In Multilingua (pp. 321 - 323). Vol. 17.

South Africa Language-in-Education Policy, Act 27 of 1996.
South African School Act, 84 OF 1996.
Suid Afrika se Nuwe Taalbeleid (n.d.) Johannesburg: Thorold’s Africana Books.

Tittlestad, P. J. H. (1998). South Africa's Language Ghosts. In English Tgay
54, Vol. 14, No 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning Qnguage, Planning lnmualfly.

London: Longman.

(Ed.) (1995). Power and Ingualm in Language Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tyack, D. 8 Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Teward Utepia. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press

Verhoef, M. (1998). “In Pursuit of Multilingualism in South Africa,”
Multilingua, Vol. 17. (pp. 181 - 196)

Webb, V. (1998). Multilingualism as a Developmentl Resource: Framework for
a Research Program. In Mutlilingua, (pp. 125 -154). Vol. 17.

Young, D. (Ed.) (1992). How to Ensure Access te English in a Post-agrtheid
Southern Africa. Cape Town: The English Academy of Southern Africa.

157

Zhou, M. (1999). The Official National Language and Language Attitudes of
Three Ethnic Minority Groups in China. In Language Plannipg and

Language Problems (pp. 157 — 174). Vol. 23, No. 2.

158

lllfllllljjaLlllgjlllgjjlll