Mother Tongue-based Literacy Programmes: Case Studies of Good ...

system accommodate diversity in language experiences? The answer to the question is often decidedoutside the school framework by political leadership. Language policy in a country is not necessarilylinked directly to concerns of learning and cognition in schools, but they definitely define the contoursof language learning and use in schools. Language choices are made by governments, both for practicaland political reasons, and are not necessarily based solely on concerns for providing effective education.In multilingual societies, where the medium of instruction chosen is that of the majority, the needsof other language speakers are also an issue. Countries have to consider at what point or whether tointroduce other national, regional and international languages into their educational systems. Theirdecisions will determine who has access to education, the quality of that education and whetherminorities are treated equitably. Language choice is important, especially for basic education, becauseit is the basis for all further learning. (UNESCO 2000)Many policy makers and scholars alike have expressed serious concerns over the negative impact offorcing children to learn through a language different from their mother tongue. This concern, coupledwith intensive advocacy for the issue at various forums, has led to the articulation of the “rights of theminority language groups.” In a strict sense, the right to education that the Jomtien Declaration purportedto guarantee for every individual should be interpreted as an obligation of the State to ensure provisionof facilities for learning through mother tongue for every child. From this point of view, all governmentsand international agencies are bound to implement programmes that guarantee education throughmother tongue for all children, irrespective of their majority or minority status. However, in multilingualsettings, decisions about the relationship between language and education are not straightforward;instead, serious consideration is needed to determine which languages to use in education and literacyprogrammes. The same holds true in the Asian context. Most nations of the region are linguisticallydiverse and, thus, the issue of using different languages for imparting learning is of critical importance.(Kosonen, 2005; Shaeffer, 2005)The concept of linguistic minority group rights has a long history grounded in the project of modernityduring the nineteenth century, when having a national language became a defining principle of thenation-state. In providing the medium through which the narrative of the nation could be constructed,told and retold in literature, myths, rituals and symbols, the language by which the nation definesitself has played a key role in the social construction of a national cultural identity. The adoption of acommon language is seen, generally, as providing an important means by which discrete groups ofpeople living within the confines of the nation-state can be integrated into a common cultural valuesystem (Rassool, 2000). With legitimization in national policy, these common languages are culturallyvalidated through mass communication, educational practices and processes, and other administrativemechanisms (Hobsbawm, 1990). The link between modernization and use of a common language runsvery deep. The concept of modernization grounded in the idea of rapid technological and scientificdevelopment demands that common languages are implicated in this process in the pivotal role ofspreading ‘technologies and ideas through education and mass media’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990: 25).This link, however, represents a double-edged sword. In addition to its potent symbolic value in thenation-building process, the notion of a common language also serves an instrumental purpose: ithas an exchange value within the labour market. Thus, polices determining language use in educationcannot be determined independent of political and economic consideration in any country.[5 ]