Poor Mma-Venson, she should be feeling somewhat squeezed from all sorts of corners. Last year her ministry was said to have performed dismally. Then there was the BEC and teachers saga whose effects are still felt up to today. Last week she found herself under attack from the Okavango MP, Mr Bagalatia Arone. Bagalatia, a young legislator accused Mma-Venson’s ministry of being discriminatory since the RNPE (1994) had recommended the use of mother tongue education in schools.
I was intrigued that in his argument in parliament, when he accused Mma Venson of discrimination, Mr. Arone used the Revised National Policy on Education of April 1994 as a basis for his attack. I have read the said document many times and there is no part of the document that recommends that minority languages should be taught in primary schools, junior or senior secondary schools. The document is important since it was approved by the National Assembly on the 7th March 1994 and therefore represents government’s position. It is to be differentiated from the Report of the National Commission on Education (RNCE) of 1993, on which the 1994 document is based.
What Arone did was perhaps not read the document carefully. The RNPE 1994 recommends the dominance of English. It gives no space for minority languages ÔÇô even at pre-primary level. On page 84 it rejects the recommendation of the RNCE which says that “children in pre-primary schools should be taught in the language dominant in the area where the school is located. English and Setswana should be introduced gradually”. It is rejected since because of “non-acceptance of Recommendation 7. Furthermore, the proposed policy on the language of instruction is contrary to national language policy” (page 85). I wish to quote copiously from the said document to present the government’s view on what it says in relation to language in general and not just minority languages. By not teaching any minority language at schools the government is consistent in its own policy ÔÇô it is not saying one thing and doing something different. The document provides much guidance on Setswana and English ÔÇô one considered a national language another being an official language. This government policy hasn’t changed. It observes the following: (pg.46) “a) Setswana teacher training should be included in the category of critical human resource shortage alongside the Science and Technical fields of study in the proposed Grant/Load Scheme.”
“b) Setswana teachers should enjoy enhanced entry salary and parallel progression similarly to Science and mathematics teachers.” (pg 47) “In recognition of the need to ensure that Setswana gains the status it deserves as a national language it is necessary to encourage more students to take it up and assist develop the language in its entirety” (italics in the original).
(page 18) “With respect to the teaching of languages in primary school, the Commission recommends that d) Setswana should be taught as a compulsory subject for citizens of Botswana throughout the primary school system. In-service training programmes should commence immediately to improve the teaching of Setswana as a subject.”
(page 21) “The goals of the Junior Certificate curriculum are to develop in all children ÔÇô proficiency in the use of Setswana and English language as tools for effective communication, study and work.”
(page 26) “In order to improve the teaching and status of Setswana, the Commission recommends that a) teachers should be exposed to as many language teaching methods as possible so as to…make Setswana more interesting as a subject c) the University of Botswana’s Department of African Languages and Literature should play a leading role in guiding academic presentations in Setswana and cooperate with the Faculty of Education in promoting the teaching of Setswana.” RNPE 94 continues to argue (page 18) b) “in order to establish the conditions for introducing English as the medium of instruction, the envisaged training programmes…should also place emphasis on the use of English.”
(page 59) “With respect to the teaching of languages in primary school, the Commission recommends that: a) English should be used as the medium of instruction from Standard 1 by 2000. c) in the meantime: i) the Ministry of Education should ensure immediately that the present policy on using English as the medium of instruction from Standard 5 is adhered to in practice. ii) the change from Setswana to English as the medium of instruction should take place in Standard 4 from 1995. iii) an accelerated programme of in-service training should be undertaken to improve the teaching of English as a subject from Standard 1 with emphasis on oral communication. iv) teachers should increase the use of English from Standard 1 onwards in teaching Mathematics and Science. With respect to the teaching of languages in primary school a) English should be used as the medium of instruction from Standard 2 as soon as practicable.”
Probably Arone anchored his attack on Venson Moitoi on what the document calls reasons for amendment which appear on page 60 which by the way are not recommendations:
“The recommendation to use English as the medium of instruction from Standard 1 was based on children going through pre-primary education where they would be introduced gradually to English. Since the recommendation on pre-primary was not accepted it is necessary for children to be taught in a language they understand first before switching to English. On the other hand there is concern about the poor performance of primary school children in English and part of the problem is that children do not get used to using English early enough in the learning process and yet they are required to write their examinations in the language. Using English as the medium of instruction from Standard 2 will improve their performance.”
Even these reasons for amendment, do not constitute an argument for minority languages. They only refer to a language that children understand which may turn out to be not their mother tongue. The overwhelming spirit of the document is to achieve the dominance of two languages: Setswana and English. There is currently a need to revisit the debate on the teaching of minority languages and clearly state what we wish to see. Previously there have been arguments based on human rights coupled with those of educators ÔÇô arguing that children learn best in their mother tongue. I consider the later argument rubbish ÔÇô my four year old son studies in an English medium school with no linguistic impediments. Linguistic equality has always been a dead end. The other debate which we should engage in is the affordability debate. How much will teaching Botswana’s 28 languages cost the government?
