Partnering with local researchers to evaluate language of instruction policy

Abstract Information: Despite progress in recent years in the proliferation of first language literacy programs, an estimated 37% of learners in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are still taught in a language they do not understand (World Bank, 2021). This is despite recent mounting evidence in LMICs underscoring that instruction in a child’s first language (L1) is one of the most significant factors fostering consistent learning gains (Evans & Acosta, 2020; Nag, et al., 2019). Despite this evidence, effective models of multilingual education are not prioritized in policy and practice in many contexts, representing a critical barrier to systemic improvement.

What explains the variations in language in education policy prioritization, implementation, and uptake across diverse contexts? Factors may include the “mythic” status of English and other international languages in postcolonial contexts (Trudell, 2021), which scholars argue remain firmly entrenched in a continued “linguistic imperialism” that perpetuate a set of myths and fallacies about how languages are taught and acquired (Phillipson, 1992; 2009). Scholars have also long recognized the ways in which language policy is a matter of power and ideology, both through implicit and explicit mechanisms like policy, testing, and curricula (Shohamy, 2006; Pennycock, 2017), and the ways in which this may perpetuate colonial structures (Brock-Utne, 2001).

Collectively, these inquiries promise to offer a robust and rich source of evidence on language policy and planning across six low- and middle-income countries. Utilizing rigorous analytic methods and an extensive data-set, the panel will offer critical insights into primary areas of difficulty in improving language in education policy, how it is prioritized politically, how it is implemented systematically, and how it is appropriated at the school level. In doing so, it promises to shine a light on the system-level factors that enable or impede effective ME policy with the aim of informing a key set of scholarly and policy problems.

These research methods were all employed in collaboration with local research institutes in six post-colonial countries (Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Senegal, Rwanda, Philippines). How did these partnerships enable better evaluations and more contextualized learnings?